DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(PAGES 20235 THROUGH 20246, VOLUME 113A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE HAVE THE JURORS REJOIN US. MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE COURT REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR CONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE LAST THURSDAY. MAY I DO THAT? YOUR HONOR, WE SUGGEST STRINGENT SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED FOR THE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAT AROSE AT THE END OF OUR SESSION ON THURSDAY. THE REASON THAT WE THINK THE SANCTION SHOULD BE SEVERE IS THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, BUT IT IS BECOMING A CONTINUED COURSE OF CONDUCT AND IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND WITH THE SAME FREQUENCY AT THE END OF THE COURT WEEK. THE COURT I'M SURE WILL RECALL LAST WEEK WE ENDED WITH TESTIMONY ABOUT A PLASTIC BAG IN THE BACK OF THE BRONCO AND THE JURY WAS LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION OVER THE WEEKEND THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING SINISTER TO HAVING THAT. THEY THEN STARTED THE SESSION ON MONDAY BY POINTING OUT THEMSELVES THAT THIS WAS STANDARD EQUIPMENT THAT WAS USED ONLY FOR THE SPARE TIRE ON THE TRUCK. THE CONDUCT WAS WANTON AND WILLFUL, IN MY OPINION, ON THURSDAY, WHEN A BAD FAITH QUESTION WAS PROPOSED. FIRST BY WAY OF HISTORY, THE COURT TWICE THAT DAY HAD TO ADMONISH COUNSEL FOR CONDUCT THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S REGULATIONS THE PRIOR WEEK. AND THEN THERE WAS A SIDE BAR WHERE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC ADMONITION BY THE COURT NOT TO BRING UP A CERTAIN INCIDENT REGARDING MICHELLE ABOUDRAM AND THE FACT THAT NICOLE SIMPSON SLAPPED HER. THEN FINALLY A QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT A 1989 INCIDENT. I HAVE REVIEWED EXTENSIVELY ALL THE MATERIALS REGARDING MR. KAELIN AND NOT ONCE IN ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY COUNSEL FOR EITHER SIDE OR ANY INVESTIGATOR WERE ANY QUESTIONS ASKED REGARDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF A 1989 INCIDENT OR ANYTHING THAT WAS ALLUDED TO BY COUNSEL BY WAY OF DIRECT -- BY WAY OF REDIRECT EXAMINATION. GIVING THE JURY THE IMPRESSION THAT MR. KAELIN WAS AWARE OF AN INCIDENT IN 1989 IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE KNEW OF THIS INCIDENT WHEN COUNSEL WELL KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MR. KAELIN, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND MR. O.J. SIMPSON UNTIL 1992. AND THEN HIGHLIGHTING IN A LOUD TONE OF VOICE WHAT WAS PRESUMED TO BE A FACT THAT MICHELLE OPENED THE DOOR TO ALLOW A BEATING IN 1989 IS A SERIOUS TRANSGRESSION. WE BELIEVE THE JURY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS TRANSGRESSION AND WE WOULD SUGGEST A SANCTION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHY THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE WOULD ACT IN SUCH AN UNPROFESSIONAL MANNER AND WHAT MOTIVATION THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING FORTH TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JURY FOR THE WEEKEND A FACT THAT THEY KNOW COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ONE BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION. WE BELIEVE THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE WITHIN THE RECORD OF PAST CONDUCT, AS WELL AS A CONTINUED COURSE OF CONDUCT ON THURSDAY, TO WARRANT THESE SANCTIONS. AND WE WOULD URGE THE COURT TO DIRECT THE JURY'S ATTENTION TO THIS.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR AN INSTRUCTION?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I WILL WRITE SOME OUT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT -- SUGGEST TO THE JURY THE FOLLOWING: THAT AT THE END OF THE SESSION ON THURSDAY COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT BEFORE THIS COURT. THE COURT HAS SANCTIONED THE PROSECUTOR FOR THAT MISCONDUCT AND THE JURY IS NOT ONLY TO DISREGARD ANY SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR IN ASKING THE QUESTION, BUT MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE MOTIVATION FOR THE PROSECUTOR IN DELIBERATELY ENGAGING IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PEOPLE WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, I'M HERE BEFORE THE COURT THIS MORNING TO ADMIT MY CULPABILITY IN ALL OF THIS. IT WAS I WHO HANDED MISS CLARK A QUESTION ON A PIECE OF PAPER ASKING HER TO ASK MR. KAELIN IF HE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, THE MAID BACK IN 1989, HAD OPENED THE DOOR TO HER QUARTERS ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT ACCESS TO THE ROOM AND ALLOWING HIM ACCESS TO NICOLE ON JANUARY 1, 1989. WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION FROM A WITNESS THAT WE HAVE INTERVIEWED -- THAT I HAVE INTERVIEWED PERSONALLY, WHO CLAIMS THAT MICHELLE ABOUDRAM TOLD HER THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED. MR. SHAPIRO ASKED MR. KAELIN ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN. HE ASKED HIM MANY QUESTIONS WHICH WE CONSIDERED TO BE QUESTIONS GOING TO MR. SIMPSON'S CHARACTER. AND WE BROUGHT THAT ISSUE UP BEFORE THE COURT, IN MY VIEW, AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT'S CHARACTER WAS FAIR GAME, AND I HANDED A QUESTION TO MISS CLARK. USUALLY WHEN I HAND MISS CLARK A QUESTION IT IS A GOOD QUESTION, AND I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HAVING ASKED A QUESTION IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I HANDED IT TO HER, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I ASKED HER TO ASK THE QUESTION OF THE WITNESS, AND ALSO BECAUSE I AM THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, NICOLE BROWN. I REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT OVER THE WEEKEND AND I NOTED THE QUESTION THAT MR. SHAPIRO ASKED MR. KAELIN. I NOTED OUR OBJECTION. I HAD FORGOTTEN THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE COURT'S RULING THAT IT WAS IRRELEVANT WHEN I HANDED HER THE QUESTION ALSO, BY THE WAY. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS FAIR CHARACTER EVIDENCE OR FAIR ISSUE OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE AT THE TIME WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION. I DON'T THINK ANY PREJUDICE HAS ACCRUED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE JURY HAS HEARD A LOT ABOUT THEIR PAST RELATIONSHIP, THEIR PAST VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP, THAT HE CALLED HER NAMES, THAT HE USED PROFANITIES, THAT HE SAID HE MIGHT BE PATHOLOGICALLY JEALOUS. THE JURY HAS HEARD THE 1993 TAPE. I THINK THE JURY HAS A FAIR -- SOME INDICATION AS TO -- AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. I CAN'T SEE HOW HE MIGHT BE PREJUDICED. I EXPECT THAT AT SOME POINT DURING THIS TRIAL THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO HEAR FROM MICHELLE ABOUDRAM AND I EXPECT THAT SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO HAVING OPENED THAT DOOR AND TO THE DEFENDANT HAVING DRAGGED THE WITNESS OUT OF THE ROOM.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH: WHAT BASIS DO WE HAVE OR DID WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION REGARDING MICHELLE ABOUDRAM WITH MR. KAELIN, GIVEN THE FACT THAT MR. KAELIN WAS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES HERE UNTIL LATE 1992?

MR. DARDEN: CHARACTER EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. IS HE AWARE? DOES HE KNOW? HE HAS TESTIFIED TO THE DEFENDANT'S GOOD CHARACTER. CHARACTER IS AN ISSUE NOW. WE FELT THAT WE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK HIM IF HE KNEW OF THINGS RELATING TO HIS BAD CHARACTER.

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION WAS COUCHED IN THIS MANNER --.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE QUESTION WAS COUCHED IN THIS MANNER: WAS MR. KAELIN AWARE -- DID HE RECALL THAT MICHELLE WAS THE ONE WHO OPENED THE DOOR TO LET THE DEFENDANT INTO THE ROOM TO BEAT NICOLE IN 1989. THAT HARDLY IS COUCHED AS A REPUTATION QUESTION.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS MY VIEW. IT WAS MY VIEW THAT IT WAS CHARACTER EVIDENCE, CHARACTER EVIDENCE-RELATED QUESTION. MISS CLARK PHRASED IT IN THE MANNER THAT SHE DID. OBVIOUSLY SHE TOOK THE PIECE OF PAPER FROM ME AND ASKED A QUESTION A MOMENT LATER RELYING ON MY IMPLIED REPRESENTATION THAT THE QUESTION WAS APPROPRIATE. WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY?

THE COURT: WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT MR. KAELIN WAS GOING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THIS INCIDENT?

MR. DARDEN: I KNOW THAT MR. KAELIN HAD A VERY, VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN. THIS INFORMATION IS COMMONLY KNOWN TO PEOPLE WHO KNEW HER AND WHO KNEW OF THE 1989 INCIDENT. QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP OR ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, OVER OUR OBJECTION, ON MANY OCCASIONS, SO WHETHER HE WAS AWARE OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. BUT THE JURY WILL HEAR THIS EVIDENCE UNLESS THE COURT PRECLUDES IT. I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO COME OUT.

THE COURT: AS TO THE '89 INCIDENT?

MR. DARDEN: AS TO THE '89 INCIDENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AS TO MR. SHAPIRO'S REQUEST THAT I ADMONISH THE JURY THAT THAT QUESTION -- THAT THERE WAS NO GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION TO BE ASKED AND THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK THAT QUESTION OR FOR MISS CLARK TO ASK THAT QUESTION?

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I THINK THAT MANY, MANY, MANY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN PROFFERED BY THE DEFENSE TO WITNESSES IN BAD FAITH THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL. WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED TO INCIDENTS WHERE THEY WERE NOT PRESENT. THEY HAVE BEEN -- HAVE TESTIFIED ON ISSUES WHERE THEY HAD NEITHER THE KNOWLEDGE OR THE TRAINING OR OTHERWISE I FELT INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THOSE ISSUES. THE COURT HAS ON MANY OCCASIONS, SINCE MR. SHAPIRO BEGAN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER, ADVISED THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS, OKAY? AND I THINK AS WELL THAT THE DEFENSE HAS A HISTORY --

THE COURT: AS I DID WITH THIS LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

MR. DARDEN: AS DID YOU WITH THIS LAST QUESTION JUST THE OTHER DAY. YOU KNOW, ALL OF US, I THINK SOMETIMES WE -- WE ARE IN THE ATTACK MODE AND WE ATTACK. THIS IS A TRIAL. THERE WAS NOTHING MALICIOUS BEHIND OUR ASKING OF THE QUESTION. I ASSUMED THAT WHEN MR. SHAPIRO ASKED THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT HE ASKED THE WITNESS IN WHICH THE COURT HAD TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE ANSWER OR THE IMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION, I ASSUME HE DIDN'T ASK MALICIOUSLY EITHER. I DON'T THINK SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT. THE COURT ADMONISHED THE JURY AND I THINK THE ADMONITION WAS FAIRLY STRONG. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PROCEED ON WITH THE TRIAL. HOPEFULLY IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, ANY RESPONSE?

MR. DARDEN: IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT, FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS THE DEFENSE PROFFERED QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES ON ISSUES OR MATTERS THAT THEY KNOW THAT ONLY THE DEFENDANT COULD TESTIFY TO, OKAY? AND WE HAVE OBJECTED AND THE COURT HAS ADMONISHED THE JURY AND THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED SOME OF THOSE OBJECTIONS, BUT IF THE COURT MAY RECALL, THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, FOUR OR FIVE AT A TIME, WHERE THE COURT FOUND THE QUESTIONS INAPPROPRIATE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT WAS RATHER A BROAD -- THIS QUESTION, THOUGH, WAS OUT OF THE BLUE.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, IT IS MY QUESTION, SO WHEN YOU SAY IT IS OUT OF THE BLUE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS -- PERHAPS IT WAS OUT OF THE BLUE. I MEAN, I AM HERE TO DO MORE THAN JUST DIE ON MY SWORD FOR MISS CLARK AND FOR THE PROSECUTION.

THE COURT: THE EXPRESSION IS FALL ON MY SWORD.

MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO FALL AND DIE ON IT AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT IS MY FAULT. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE CHARACTER EVIDENCE QUESTION. THEY CONTINUE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THESE WITNESSES THAT GO TO CHARACTER AND I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT I AM -- THAT I HAVE EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER AND NOW I HAVE MORE AND WE ARE GOING TO BE APPROACHING THE COURT AND ASKING PERMISSION TO PRESENT A FEW DAYS OF BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: -- IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: ANY BRIEF RESPONSE, MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS WHO IS AT FAULT. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE AND THE LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IN PRESENTING IT. FURTHER, I THINK THE COURT CAN EASILY FIND THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS AT THE END OF FRIDAY SESSIONS. ONE SESSION WE ENDED WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT MR. SIMPSON SUFFERED A CUT ON HIS KNUCKLE. THE PEOPLE ARE WELL AWARE THAT EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THAT CUT TOOK PLACE IN CHICAGO AND THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WERE AWARE OF IT AND THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THAT BY MR. SIMPSON GETTING A BAND-AID FROM THE CLERK WHEN HE CHECKED OUT, BY HAVING A BROKEN GLASS IN THE BATHROOM AND HAVING BLOOD ON A TOWEL AND ON A SHEET IN THE ROOM IN WHICH HE WAS STAYING. I HAD ALREADY POINTED OUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE BRONCO WHICH ANY MINOR INVESTIGATION, ANY SIMPLE QUESTION WOULD POINT OUT THIS IS STANDARD EQUIPMENT AND WASN'T AS -- THE PEOPLE HAD WANTED THE JURY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS PREMEDITATED TO GO AND HAVE A BAG TO BURY A BODY, WHICH WAS THE SPIN FOR THE WEEKEND THAT WAS PUT OUT. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS CONDUCT THAT COMES AGAIN RIGHT AT THE END OF THE COURT SESSION THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THIS IS A WITNESS WHO HAS PROBABLY BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION AS MUCH OR MORE THAN ANY OTHER WITNESS IN THE CASE. THIS IS SOMEBODY THEY VIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS. THIS IS SOMEBODY THAT THEY VOICE DISPLEASURE WITH IN THEIR QUESTIONS AND TRY TO IMPEACH BASED ON CREDIBILITY. AND THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED IN A MALICIOUS WAY.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ASSUMING THAT I'M WILLING TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, BECAUSE IF YOU RECOLLECT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR PROCEEDINGS THURSDAY AFTERNOON, I TOLD THEM THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. I IN FACT TOLD THEM THAT THE RECORD, WHICH AT THIS POINT IS UNDISPUTED, WAS THAT MR. KAELIN DID NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS UNTIL LATE, 1992, AND THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND I TOLD THE JURY THAT THE QUESTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE. NOW, IF I AM TO ADMONISH THEM AGAIN, AS PER YOUR REQUEST, IT IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE QUESTION AND ANSWER AGAIN. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO?

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS NOT OUR PURPOSE NOR THE INTENTION THAT WE ARE SEEKING.

THE COURT: BUT THAT IS GOING TO BE THE EFFECT.

MR. SHAPIRO: NOT NECESSARILY. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IS OUR TEAM HAS BEEN SANCTIONED TWICE FOR CONDUCT THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND THE JURY HAS BEEN TOLD THAT WE WERE SANCTIONED AND THOSE SANCTIONS WERE VERY STERN AND VERY ONEROUS.

THE COURT: NO, THE JURY HAS NOT BEEN TOLD ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

MR. SHAPIRO: MY RECOLLECTION IS THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL WAS WRONG.

THE COURT: THAT IS WITH REGARDS TO THE OPENING STATEMENT ISSUES?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

THE COURT: THE ROSA LOPEZ MATTERS ARE IF AND WHEN ROSA LOPEZ IS BROUGHT TO TESTIFY.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN THEY WILL ALSO BE MADE AWARE AND OUR CLIENT WILL SUFFER AS A RESULT. WE BELIEVE THIS JURY SHOULD KNOW THAT SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTION, THAT THIS WAS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A BAD FAITH QUESTION AND THAT THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTIVATION OF THE PERSON ASKING SUCH A QUESTION. YES, WE WANT THAT DONE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: AND AS THEY ARE COMING IN, LET ME SEE COUNSEL OVER AT THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. WE ARE MISSING ONE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: WHEN WE WERE IN SESSION LAST THURSDAY A QUESTION WAS POSED TO MR. KAELIN AT THE END OF OUR SESSION REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN 1989. THAT INCIDENT YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT ALREADY. AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER TO MR. KAELIN THAT CLOSED THE SESSION WAS WITH REGARDS TO MR. KAELIN'S KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THAT 1989 INCIDENT, AND AS WE KNOW, MR. KAELIN HAD NO CONTACT WITH ANY OF THESE PEOPLE PRIOR TO LATE 1992 AND THUS HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING ANYTHING PERSONALLY ABOUT THOSE INCIDENTS. IN PROPOUNDING QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES COUNSEL MUST HAVE A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THAT WITNESS HAS COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO OFFER WITH REGARDS TO THAT SUBJECT MATTER, AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU, I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN BECAUSE I FELT THERE WAS A LACK OF A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. KAELIN WOULD HAVE GOOD INFORMATION, COMPETENT INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE, AND I FOUND THE QUESTION TO BE INAPPROPRIATE. OFTENTIMES YOU WILL NOTE THAT I SUSTAIN OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS AND I OCCASIONALLY INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU SHOULD ONLY CONSIDER THE QUESTION FOR THE MEANING THAT IT GIVES TO THE ANSWER AND YOU SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO BE TRUE ANY IMPLICATION THAT IS SUGGESTED BY THE QUESTION, AND THAT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION AND ANSWER AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

BRIAN KATO KAELIN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. MR. KAELIN, GOOD MORNING.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: REDIRECT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: NOW, MR. KAELIN, YOU LIVED IN THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION FROM JANUARY OF 1994 UNTIL JUNE OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO WAS LIVING IN THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU WERE LIVING THERE?

A: ON ROCKINGHAM? O.J. AND ARNELLE, MYSELF AND GIGI OFF AND ON.

Q: AND WHEN GIGI WAS NOT THERE, WHO ELSE WAS THERE?

A: WHO WOULD VISIT?

Q: NO, WHO WAS THE MAID?

A: BEFORE THAT WAS MICHELLE.

Q: WERE YOU LIVING THERE WHEN SHE WAS LIVING THERE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INTERACT WITH HER ON A DAILY BASIS?

A: IF I WOULD SEE HER, YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. SHE WOULD BE THERE EVERYDAY AND I WOULD SEE HER.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HER HER RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE NICOLE WHEN SHE WOULD COME TO VISIT ROCKINGHAM?

A: SOMETIMES, YES.

Q: DID YOU SPEAK TO MICHELLE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU SPEAK TO NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: I BELIEVE YOU EARLIER TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE NICOLE AND MICHELLE WOULD NOT BE AT ROCKINGHAM AT THE SAME TIME?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE REASON FOR THAT?

A: THEY DIDN'T LIKE EACH OTHER.

Q: AND DID YOU EVER SEE THEM AT ROCKINGHAM TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME?

A: IN THE HOUSE AT THE SAME TIME BUT NOT IN THE SAME AREA.

Q: OKAY. HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE EACH OTHER.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SPEAK TO MICHELLE ABOUT IT?

A: SHE WOULD BRING THINGS UP.

Q: ABOUT NICOLE?

A: YES.

Q: DID NICOLE BRING UP THINGS ABOUT MICHELLE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU THOUGHT NICOLE AND O.J. GOT ALONG WELL WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THIS MATTER WITH MR. SHAPIRO ON EXAMINATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: OFF AND ON, YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T -- BUT YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT O.J. DID FROM DAY-TO-DAY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE DEFENDANT WENT AND WHAT HE DID ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YET YOU TESTIFIED TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE IF YOU DID NOT SEE HIM OR HER ON A DAILY BASIS?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SIR?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: SAY IT AGAIN.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU STATED AN OPINION THAT THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP FROM THE TIME THAT YOU KNEW THEM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: YOU ALSO TESTIFIED YOU DID NOT SEE NICOLE FROM JANUARY TO JUNE ON A BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP IF YOU SAW NEITHER ONE OF THEM ON A DAILY BASIS?

A: ON A DAILY BASIS I WOULD NOT SEE THEM. I'M GOING ON WHEN I DID SEE -- AT TIME WHEN I DID SEE IT.

Q: FROM JANUARY TO JUNE OF 1994 HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THEM TOGETHER?

A: JANUARY TO JUNE? SIX OR SEVEN.

Q: SIX TO SEVEN TIMES IN SIX MONTHS?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON THAT YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT WHAT YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP ON?

A: YES.

Q: THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS, WHERE DID THEY OCCUR?

A: AT BOTH PLACES, BOTH RESIDENCES.

Q: AT BUNDY?

A: BUNDY, MOSTLY AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES AT BUNDY?

A: TWICE.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING AT BUNDY AT THAT TIME?

A: I WAS DOING SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT. WATCHING A MOVIE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT BRING YOU WITH HIM TO BUNDY TO WATCH THE CHILDREN?

A: NO.

Q: THEN HOW DID YOU GET TO BUNDY?

A: I DROVE.

Q: YOU DROVE OVER THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT AT NICOLE'S REQUEST?

A: I -- NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS HER REQUEST. I JUST WAS -- SHOWED UP.

Q: YOU INVITED YOURSELF?

A: I GUESS.

Q: AND WHEN DID THAT OCCUR?

A: PROBABLY FOUR MONTHS BEFORE.

Q: LIKE IN FEBRUARY OF '94?

A: YEAH.

Q: DIDN'T YOU ALSO -- DIDN'T YOU EARLIER TESTIFY, SIR, THAT YOU AND NICOLE -- YOUR RELATIONSHIP WENT THROUGH A MAJOR CHANGE AFTER YOU MOVED INTO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT YOU WERE NO LONGER FRIENDLY? DO YOU REMEMBER TESTIFYING TO THAT?

A: I WAS FRIENDLY.

Q: BUT SHE WAS NOT.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, PROBABLY NOT AS FRIENDLY AS BEFORE, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YES. YOU RECALL TESTIFYING THAT SHE TOLD YOU SHE FELT YOU HAD BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO THE LAST TIME YOU VISITED HER HOUSE WAS FEBRUARY?

A: I THINK SO.

Q: DID SHE ASK YOU NOT TO COME BY ANY MORE?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER HER SAYING THAT.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T?

A: I DIDN'T GO BY, NO.

Q: AND AFTER THAT TIME DID YOU CALL HER EVER?

A: YEAH, A FEW TIMES.

Q: WHEN?

A: THE DATE I DON'T KNOW, BUT AFTER FEBRUARY. PROBABLY IN MARCH.

Q: DID YOU EVER CALL HER AGAIN AFTER MARCH?

A: THERE WERE SOME EVENT THAT WAS HELD AT THE HOUSE FOR THE SUNSHINE SCHOOL AND I THINK SHE CALLED ME AND THEN SHE CAME OVER AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE WAS, BUT IT WAS AFTER MARCH WHERE I WAS PUTTING UP THE CHAIRS OR SOMETHING FOR THE EVENT.

Q: OKAY. THAT RELATED TO THE EVENTS, DID IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU WERE NO LONGER CALLING EACH OTHER AS FRIENDS AFTER WHEN? AFTER WHAT POINT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AT SOME POINT DID YOU STOP CALLING EACH OTHER ON A FRIENDLY BASIS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: I WOULD SAY BEGINNING OF MARCH.

Q: DID NICOLE TELL YOU THAT SHE HAD FELT BETRAYED BY YOU FOR MOVING IN WITH O.J.?

A: NO, IT WAS THE -- SHE SAID I WAS MANIPULATED.

Q: WERE YOU WORKING BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 1994?

A: YES.

Q: AS WHAT?

A: UMM, PUTTING EXTRAS IN FILMS AND GETTING A FEW PARTS IN FILM.

Q: AND DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT HELP YOU TO GET PARTS IN FILM ON A FEW OCCASIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

THE COURT: GOES TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THIS WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL OVERRULE MYSELF.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. CLARK: NOT THIS.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT WAS COVERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. BRIEFLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT HELP YOU TO GET ACTING ROLES BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 1994?

A: I NEVER GOT AN ACTING ROLE THROUGH O.J.

Q: DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT CALL TO GIVE YOU A ROLE IN FROGMAN?

A: NO.

Q: OR BIT PARTS ON SOME OF THE SHOWS HE WAS WORKING ON?

A: NEVER.

Q: NEVER?

A: NEVER.

Q: AFTER JUNE OF 1994 DO YOU RECALL HIM CALLING TO GET YOU PARTS ON ANY TELEVISION SHOWS OR MOVIES?

A: NO. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENED WAS ON A KUSHNER-LOCKE, THERE IS AN AUDITION. I DIDN'T GET THE ROLE, BUT I ALREADY HAD THE AUDITION SET UP. HE MADE A CALL BUT I DIDN'T GET THE ROLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WHEN DID HE MAKE THAT CALL FOR YOU?

A: I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MAY.

Q: MAY OF 1994?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT YES?

A: IT WAS CALLED OUTPOST. I MEAN KUSHNER-LOCKE WAS THE COMPANY.

THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL THAT?

THE WITNESS: K-U-S-H-N-E-R SLASH L-O-C-K-E.

MS. CLARK: YOU MEAN HYPHEN L-O-C-K-E?

A: HYPHEN.

Q: THAT WAS FOR WHAT KIND OF PART?

A: AN ACTING ROLE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE LEAD OR NOT.

Q: IN WHAT?

A: A FILM.

Q: A FEATURE FILM?

A: A FEATURE FILM.

Q: CALLED?

A: OUTPOST.

Q: AND THAT IS THE ONLY TIME YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT HE MADE AN EFFORT TO GET YOU A PART?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WASN'T IT -- WAS IT NICOLE THAT WAS HOME EVERYDAY AND TOOK CARE OF THE CHILDREN WHEN YOU WERE STAYING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE STAYING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENDANT NOT SHOWING UP TO SEE THE CHILDREN WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: LET'S ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I NEED TO TAKE AN UNSCHEDULED RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE. DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU AND DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. I ANTICIPATE WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR ABOUT THIRTY MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MR. KAELIN, YOU CAN STEP DOWN, AND PLEASE DON'T LEAVE THE COURTROOM, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR THIRTY MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

(PAGES 20276 THROUGH 20282, VOLUME 114A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN CAMERA, NOT SEALED:)

THE COURT: OKAY. ON THE RECORD THEN, MISS CLARK, YOU WANTED TO ARGUE YOUR OBJECTION -- COURT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION TO THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

MS. CLARK: YES. I HAVE MY LAW CLERKS FLAGGING IT RIGHT NOW. MR. SHAPIRO WENT IN SOME LENGTH TO DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT TO HIS CHILDREN AND HIS CONCERN FOR THEM, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE RECITAL AND I THINK THAT AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IS TO INQUIRE INTO THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN.

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE HE IS GOING TO SAY?

MS. CLARK: I ANTICIPATE THAT HE WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE MANY OCCASIONS ON WHICH THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR SCHEDULED VISITS WITH THE CHILDREN AND HE IS IN A POSITION TO KNOW.

DEPUTY MAGNERA: JUDGE, WE NEED SOMEONE TO COME I.D. A BRIEFCASE UNKNOWN ORIGIN.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT GREENISH BROWN ONE? WHY DON'T YOU GO LOOK AT IT.

MR. SHAPIRO: NOT MINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEND ALL THE LAWYERS TO GO OUT AND LOOK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST TELLING MARCIA THAT ON -- I MEAN CHRIS -- THAT ON ... WE WILL TAKE THAT UP LATER.

MR. COCHRAN: SAY AGAIN.

THE COURT: ON ... I WANT TO GET AS MUCH TIME IN FRONT OF THE JURY AS POSSIBLE THIS MORNING, SINCE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT LOOSE EARLY AND NOW WE HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED AGAIN.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU TELL US, JUDGE, ABOUT DO WE QUERY THE JURORS EN MASSE REGARDING THEIR DESIRES AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT TIME AND THAT SORT OF THING OR DID YOU JUST MAKE A DECISION?

THE COURT: NO. THEY WANT TO GO FASTER THAN WE ARE GOING.

MR. COCHRAN: THE COURT WILL DO IT BASED UPON THAT? TALK TO US NOW OR NOT?

THE COURT: BASED UPON THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO NORMAL HOURS EXCEPT FOR FRIDAY AND THEN ON WEDNESDAY WE ARE GOING TO QUIT AT FOUR O'CLOCK AND THEN THIS THURSDAY, OUT OF ORDER, WE ARE GOING TO QUIT AT 3:00, BUT THEN WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE STANDARD SCHEDULE.

MR. COCHRAN: 9:00 TO --

THE COURT: 9:00 TO 4:30.

MR. COCHRAN: 4:00 ON WEDNESDAY, HALF DAY ON FRIDAYS?

THE COURT: THIS THURSDAY WE ARE BREAKING AT 3:00 FOR ANOTHER COURT HEARING.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN HALF DAY ON FRIDAYS?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING INTO THE SCIENTIFIC PHASE, WOULD IT?

MR. COCHRAN: 9:00 TO 6:00 ACTUALLY.

THE COURT: ACTUALLY, IF IT WERE UP TO ME, WE WOULD START AT 8:00 IN THE MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY MAY WANT TO GO TO -- BOB BLASIER HERE? THEY MAY WANT TO GO LONGER, JUDGE. TALK TO THEM.

THE COURT: WELL, THE ONLY PROBLEM IS WHEN O.J. COMES INTO THE BUILDING EVERYTHING STOPS. THAT IS WHY WE START AT NINE O'CLOCK, BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR BODIES AND THEIR CUSTODIES HERE. WE COULD START AT 8:00 BUT THAT ASSUMES THAT MARCIA DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: MARCIA SAID WE SHOULD TRY TO START AT 8:30.

MS. CLARK: BLAMING ME.

MR. COCHRAN: 8:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: WHY DON'T WE EXPLORE THAT. WE MAY BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S SEE. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK A FULL DAY. ALL RIGHT. AS TO YOUR OBJECTION, MARCIA, AS TO BOB'S OBJECTION REGARDING SCOPE, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?

MS. CLARK: THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- I HAVE MY LAW CLERKS FLAGGING THOSE AREAS IN THE TRANSCRIPT GOING INTO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN, HE WAS A LOVING FATHER, HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING TIME WITH SYDNEY AND WAS REMARKING ON THAT AND THAT WAS THE SOLE REASON FOR HIM BEING UPSET. THERE WAS THAT EFFORT TO PAINT THAT PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT AS LOVING FATHER AND LOVING HUSBAND. AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I THINK IT IS FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION OR FAIR IMPEACHMENT TO GO INTO THE FACT THAT THIS WITNESS WAS PRESENT AND LIVED WITH NICOLE WHEN O.J. FAILED TO VISIT ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN HE HAD SCHEDULED VISITS, AND HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: SO IT JUST GOES TO ADDRESS THAT. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A ONE QUESTION, TWO QUESTION THING.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ON DIRECT EXAMINATION WAS AN IMPLICATION THAT THERE WAS A MOTIVE THAT O.J. WAS UNHAPPY BECAUSE OF THE WAY NICOLE TREATED HIM VIS-A-VIS SYDNEY AT THE RECITAL. AND THE PURPOSE OF MY CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS IN THAT NARROW AREA TO CLEAR THAT UP. THIS NOW BRINGS UP A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ATTENTIVE ON CHILD CUSTODY AND CHILD CARE ISSUES, AND IT IS AN ISSUE THAT REALLY IS A CHARACTER ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RULED ON.

MS. CLARK: WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN BRINGING UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH THIS WITNESS ABOUT WHAT A GENEROUS PERSON HE IS, ABOUT THE LOVING FATHER THAT HE IS, ABOUT THE GOOD HUSBAND THAT HE IS AND HIS GENEROSITY TO NICOLE'S FAMILY. ALL OF THIS WAS PERMITTED, ALL OF THIS WAS ALLOWED, ALL OF THIS IS CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND WITH --

THE COURT: I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT, MISS CLARK. I'M INTERESTED IN THE SPECIFIC ISSUE REGARDING CHILD -- THE CHILDREN AND CHILD CARE.

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS GONE INTO BY THE DEFENSE, THAT THE SOLE REASON THAT HE WAS CONCERNED OR UPSET WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE WITH SYDNEY AND THE PICTURE OF HIS DEVOTION TO HIS CHILDREN. AND IN RESPONSE TO IMPEACH THAT, I THINK IT IS FAIR.

THE COURT: AND WHAT IS MR. KAELIN GOING TO TESTIFY? WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY? WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE HE IS GOING TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT? HE IS AWARE OF ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OVER THE WEEKEND AND HE FAILED TO SHOW? IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HEAR?

MS. CLARK: IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE OR TWO. THERE WERE NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

THE COURT: WELL, HOW MANY MORE THAN ONE OR TWO?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A DIARY FROM NICOLE THAT INDICATES IT WAS A REPEATED THING, THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK THAT HE WAS MISSING HIS VISITS WITH THE CHILDREN AND THAT HE WOULD SCHEDULE THINGS, SCHEDULE DINNERS TO TAKE THEM TO AND NEVER SHOW UP, SCHEDULE WEEKENDS TO HAVE THEM AND NEVER SHOW UP OR BRING THEM BACK EARLIER THAN SCHEDULED.

THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT -- WHAT MR. KAELIN IS GOING TO SAY?

MS. CLARK: WELL, I NEVER KNOW WHAT MR. KAELIN IS GOING TO SAY EXACTLY. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THAT BECAUSE HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE SAME TIME SHE MADE HER -- HE WAS LIVING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE HER JOURNAL ENTRIES INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN THEY HAD SCHEDULED VISITS.

THE COURT: THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A DECEDENT'S JOURNAL EXCEPTION IN THE EVIDENCE CODE.

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT TRYING TO GET HER JOURNAL IN. I'M SAYING I HAVE A GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN THE VERACITY OF THIS INFORMATION AND MR. KAELIN SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: HE WAS LIVING THERE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD STRENUOUSLY OBJECT UNDER 352. IT IS VERY, VERY PREJUDICIAL AND IT OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW AREA AS TO WHY HE MIGHT HAVE HAD TO, IF DID HE HAVE TO, CANCEL A VISIT. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AND WHICH I THOROUGHLY CROSS-EXAMINED ON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A MOTIVE TO KILL NICOLE BECAUSE SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW O.J. TO SEE SYDNEY AND THAT WAS THE ONLY AREA I EXAMINED ON. AND NOW TO GO THROUGH AND OPEN UP A DOOR FOR AN ENTIRE HISTORY OF PROPER PARENTING ON BOTH SIDES IS INAPPROPRIATE, IS AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME, IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION AND GETS US INTO TANGENTIAL ISSUES THAT THE COURT HAS ALWAYS SAID WE WANT TO AVOID.

MS. CLARK: WELL, COUNSEL SIMPLY IS ASKING THE COURT TO SAVE HIM FROM HIS OWN IMPROVIDENT QUESTION. IT IS TOO BAD. HE ASKED QUESTIONS THAT ARE SO OPEN-ENDED AND SO BROAD, HE HAS OPENED EVERY DOOR AND NOW HE IS ASKING THE COURT TO BASICALLY SAVE HIM. IT IS NOT FAIR, YOUR HONOR. IN CROSS-EXAMINATION HE WENT INTO THESE MATTERS, AND REDIRECT. IT IS APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WAS DONE AND WE OBJECTED TO IT. WHEN WE OBJECTED TO IT THE COURT OVERRULED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT HAPPENS -- I ALSO SUSTAINED SOME OF YOUR OBJECTIONS AND THEN YOU CAME BACK AND OPENED THE DOOR YOURSELF, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, SO DO YOU WANT ME TO SAVE YOU FROM THAT AS WELL?

MS. CLARK: NO. I WANTED YOU TO ALLOW US TO EXPLORE THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, AND I THINK THE BEST ARGUMENT THAT MR. SHAPIRO MAKES, IS THAT THEN WE GET INTO ISSUES OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF GOOD CARE-BAD CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WHICH ARE PRETTY MUCH IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT THE DEFENDANT LOVES HIS CHILDREN.

MS. CLARK: REALLY? WE DON'T SEE EYE TO EYE ON THAT ONE AT ALL.

THE COURT: WELL, AREN'T WE GOING FAR AFIELD? LOVING THE CHILDREN IS ONE THING. KILLING THE MOM IS SOMETHING ELSE.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK SO AND IT IS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: WE OBJECTED TO BEGIN WITH ON THE GROUND IT WAS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. OUR OBJECTION IS ON THE RECORD SAYING THIS IS ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, AND THE COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTION AND ALLOWED IT ALL IN.

THE COURT: WELL, IF I ALLOW THIS -- IF I ALLOW THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HEAR 53 DEFENSE WITNESSES WHO ARE BEING TO SAY HE WAS A LOVING FATHER.

MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY HEAR THAT ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR, BUT NEVERTHELESS, I MEAN COUNSEL OPENS THIS DOOR AND NOW WANTS TO SHUT IT ON THE PEOPLE AND THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WHEN CROSS-EXAMINATION OPENS THESE DOORS, THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO LIMIT IT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO 53 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN HE DID AND DID NOT SHOW UP, BUT I THINK WE ARE CERTAINLY ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE MATTER ADDRESSED BY COUNSEL ON CROSS IN A LIMITED FASHION, AND THEN THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO LIMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL AS WELL AS TO THE SCOPE OF THIS KIND OF QUESTIONING. BUT TO TIE OUR HANDS AFTER THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR AND THROWN THE FIRST PUNCH AND OVERRULED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION TO IT WOULD SIMPLY GIVE AN UNBALANCED AND UNTRUE PICTURE TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: WELL, YOUR ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT CHARACTER EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT SAYING IT ISN'T, NO. IF THE COURT HAS DETERMINED -- WELL, I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I THINK CHARACTER EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE DEFENSE CASE AND NOT ATTEMPTED TO BE PRESENTED THROUGH THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY. I ASKED NOTHING PERTAINING TO CHARACTER EVIDENCE FROM THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: WELL, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS MR. KAELIN'S ONLY APPEARANCE HERE, BUT I SEE THAT WE WILL PROBABLY SEE HIM AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE WOULD SEE HIM AGAIN IF WE ADHERE TO PROPER PROCEDURE IN THE COURTROOM AND THAT THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NOT EVEN A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. KAELIN KNOWS ANY OF THIS, TO BEGIN WITH. THAT IS THE FIRST THING. BECAUSE THOSE QUESTIONS -- EXCUSE ME. MISS CLARK WANTS TO TALK, I WILL WAIT.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD, MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE DISCOVERY, WE HAVE ALL TALKED TO MR. KAELIN, AND THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED BY ANYONE, AND UNLESS SHE CAN MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO YOUR HONOR THAT SHE HAS ASKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS AND KNOWS THE ANSWER OR THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCOVERY MATERIAL, IT WOULD BE BAD FAITH. THE SECOND THING IS WE ARE GOING TO END UP WITH A TRIAL THAT HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH TO MURDERED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN, BUT WHETHER WHO IS A BETTER PARENT, WHO TOOK CARE OF THE CHILDREN, AND THAT IS NOT AN ISSUED IN THIS CASE.

MS. CLARK: EXCEPT THAT COUNSEL HAS MADE IT AN ISSUE. WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT NICOLE INVITED HIM TO STAY IN THE GUEST HOUSE AFTER ONLY KNOWING HIM A WEEK AND WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, LET'S STOP GOING FAR AFIELD AT THIS POINT. THE POINT RAISED BY MR. SHAPIRO AT THIS POINT IS CAN YOU MAKE A GOOD FAITH OFFER THAT THAT IS WHAT KATO KAELIN IS GOING TO SAY WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, THAT HE IS AWARE OF NUMEROUS INCIDENCES, X, Y AND Z, WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS OBLIGATED OR HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO TAKE THE KIDS AND NEVER SHOWED, STOOD THEM UP?

MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN LIVED AT GRETNA GREEN DURING THAT ENTIRE TIME. MUCH OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFRAY THE RENTAL COSTS WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN. HE HAS SO TESTIFIED.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU ASKED HIM -- HAVE YOU ASKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS?

MS. CLARK: I WILL GO AND ASK HIM NOW, IF THAT IS WHAT THE COURT WOULD LIKE.

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: I FIND IT MORE PRODUCTIVE TO TALK TO MR. KAELIN ON THE WITNESS STAND WHERE HE FEELS SOME PRESSURE TO TELL THE TRUTH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WILL SAY TO ME PRIVATELY. HE IS NOT A COOPERATIVE WITNESS. HE IS OBVIOUSLY A RELUCTANT WITNESS, FOR THE PROSECUTION, THAT IS.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: AND SO IT IS --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE PEOPLE SHOULD WITHDRAW HIM AND MOVE TO STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: NO, THEY CAN PRESENT --

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE NO FAITH IN THEIR WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE FAITH IN OUR WITNESS. WE HAVE FAITH IN HIS ABILITY.

THE COURT: WAIT. THEY CAN PRESENT HOSTILE WITNESSES. IN FACT, I'M SURPRISED THEY HAVEN'T ASKED ME TO DEEM HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS YET.

MS. CLARK: BUT THEY WILL.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE IS A RECORD FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, IN ANY EVENT, I DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE, MR. COCHRAN, BUT THAT ISSUE HASN'T BEEN BROACHED YET SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON IT. BUT MISS CLARK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHAT WITH MR. KAELIN BEFORE YOU ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THEN MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO BEFORE WE GET THERE, WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF SIDE BAR FOR YOU TO TELL ME YES OR NO WHAT HE SAYS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET'S GO DO SOME BUSINESS. I ASSUME THE SHERIFFS HAVE CLEARED THE COURTROOM BY NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN MR. KAELIN TALK TO MR. SHAPIRO ALSO?

THE COURT: SURE. THE TWO OF YOU CAN TALK.

(AT 10:15 A.M. THE PROCEEDINGS IN CAMERA WERE CONCLUDED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: BEFORE WE HAVE THE JURY IN, MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO --

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ACCOMPANY MISS CLARK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I ASKED PERMISSION TO INTERVIEW MR. KAELIN BEFORE MR. SHAPIRO DID. IN VIEW OF THE INTIMIDATION THAT THIS WITNESS HAS HAD AND THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITH AND REGARD TO THE DEFENSE TO PERSUADE THIS WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN A CERTAIN MANNER, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR ME TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC WITH HIM WITHOUT THE PRESENCE, INTIMIDATING PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH MR. KAELIN WITH ANOTHER WITNESS PRESENT, AND MR. SHAPIRO IS FREE TO DISCUSS WHATEVER HE WOULD LIKE WITH MR. KAELIN, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A PRODUCTIVE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH IF MR. SHAPIRO IS STANDING THERE BREATHING DOWN HIS NECK AND INTIMIDATING HIM.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE AGREED THIS COULD BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH ATTORNEYS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE MR. KAELIN.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I HEARD BRIEFLY ALSO?

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. YOUR HONOR PREVIOUSLY HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ISSUE WARNINGS TO COUNSEL. I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY OBJECTION TO THE INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS THAT WERE JUST MADE.

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE MR. KAELIN IN, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. KAELIN, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

BRIAN KATO KAELIN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, SIR. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ASK YOUR QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: MR. KAELIN, YOU LIVED ON GRETNA GREEN FROM, DID YOU INDICATE JANUARY OF 1993 UNTIL DECEMBER OF 1993?

A: UH, JANUARY '93 TILL ABOUT JANUARY '94, KIND OF -- END OF -- LATE DECEMBER, JANUARY, THE MOVE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THEN.

Q: AND PART OF YOUR RESPONSE AND PART OF WHAT YOU DID THERE TO DEFRAY THE COST OF RENT WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED TO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU -- WERE YOU AWARE OF WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PICKED UP OR VISITED BY THE DEFENDANT?

A: I WASN'T ALWAYS AWARE OF THE TIME FRAMES. SOMETIMES YES, SOMETIMES NO.

Q: DID IT HAPPEN THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND PICK UP THE CHILDREN FOR VISITATION AND FAILED TO SHOW UP?

A: UH, ONCE I KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES, BUT I KNOW AT LEAST ONCE.

Q: AT LEAST ONCE WHEN HE FAILED TO APPEAR TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE?

A: FOR A WEEKEND.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: THAT'S -- I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER TIMES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME BY TO VISIT WITH THE CHILDREN DURING THE WEEK AND FAILED TO SHOW UP?

A: UMM, MAYBE ONCE ON THAT TOO. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE SCHEDULE OF WHEN IN TOWN AND OUT OF TOWN, BUT IF NICOLE HAD SAID SOMETHING TO ME, THAT'S WHEN I WOULD BE AWARE. SO SHE MIGHT HAVE SAID IT MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE TO ME, BECAUSE THEY HAD ACTIVITIES ALL THE TIME OF KARATE AND THEY ALWAYS WERE DOING SOMETHING ACTIVE AND I DIDN'T KNOW THE PICK-UP SCHEDULE. IF SHE ASKED ME TO PICK THEM UP SOMEWHERE, I'D GO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS -- UH, BECAUSE -- IF O.J. WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK THEM UP OR ME, BUT I WAS THERE.

Q: OKAY. SO THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHEN SHE WOULD TELL YOU TO GO AND PICK UP THE CHILDREN AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE O.J. TO DO IT OR NOT?

A: YEAH. OR -- OR FOR ME JUST TO DO IT.

Q: BUT ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS YOU KNOW OF, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONE TO HAVE THEM ONCE FOR A WEEKEND AND ONCE DURING THE WEEK, AND HE DIDN'T SHOW UP?

A: WELL, YEAH. YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND TAKE THEM TO DINNER DURING THE WEEK AND FAILED TO SHOW UP?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I -- I MEAN IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS LIKE SHE HAD PLANS OR SOMETHING. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL NICOLE COMPLAINING TO YOU THAT HE FAILED TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO?

A: ONCE, YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: DURING MY STAY ON GRETNA GREEN.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHEN DURING YOUR STAY ON GRETNA GREEN?

A: THE EXACT MONTH, NO. IT COULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT SIX MONTHS INTO STAYING THERE LIKE ON JUNE.

Q: YOU ONLY RECALL HER TALKING ABOUT THAT ONCE?

A: RIGHT NOW, YES. THAT'S -- I CAN'T --

Q: ONLY ONCE?

A: I MEAN I DIDN'T KNOW THE SCHEDULE. I REALLY DIDN'T.

Q: NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES SHE TALKED TO YOU AND COMPLAINED TO YOU ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE FAILED TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO.

A: YEAH. I WASN'T AWARE IF SHE WOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PICK-UP SCHEDULE, THAT SHE COULD BRING IT UP LIKE IF O.J. WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK THEM UP AT SCHOOL OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A COMPLETE STAY OVER THE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK, IF HE HAD TIME DURING THE WEEK. SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN, "OH, HE DIDN'T PICK THEM UP AT SCHOOL TODAY," OR FOR DINNER, BUT IT WASN'T -- AND IF IT WASN'T THAT WAY, THEN I WOULD HAVE GONE AND PICKED THEM UP.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: BUT IT WASN'T --

Q: SO YOU RECALL HER TELLING YOU ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK THEM UP AND FAILED TO DO SO?

A: ONCE. LIKE I SAID ONCE, TWICE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE. I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH -- IF SHE WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING LIKE "OH, O.J. DIDN'T PICK THEM UP. CAN YOU GET THEM," SO I WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND, SO, OKAY, I'LL GET THEM.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING YOU THE REASONING BEHIND.

A: OKAY. SO --

Q: I'M ASKING YOU ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE WAS --

A: AT LEAST TWICE.

Q: -- SUPPOSED TO --

A: AT LEAST TWICE.

Q: AT LEAST TWICE. AND WAS THAT -- AND WAS ONE OF THOSE DURING THE WEEKEND, A WEEKEND PICK UP?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HER COMPLAINING TO YOU THAT HE DROPPED THEM OFF SOONER THAN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO AND SHE HAD TO CHANGE PLANS AS A RESULT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS DID HE DO THAT?

A: I REMEMBER THAT ONCE.

Q: AND WAS THAT EARLY ON THE WEEKEND?

A: UH, YES.

Q: SO HE BROUGHT THEM BACK ON THE WEEKEND BEFORE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT A DAY EARLY?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: SO HE BROUGHT THEM BACK ON SATURDAY INSTEAD OF SUNDAY.

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.

Q: SO SHE HAD TO REARRANGE HER SCHEDULE TO BE HOME FOR THE CHILDREN?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON ANOTHER OCCASION, DO YOU RECALL THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE FAILED TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN, HE MISSED ONE OF HIS WEEKENDS?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY, BUT I THINK THAT HAPPENED.

Q: AND ANOTHER OCCASION, DO YOU REMEMBER SHE TOLD YOU THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME BY TO TAKE THEM TO DINNER OR TO TAKE THEM TO AN ACTIVITY AND FAILED TO DO SO?

A: LIKE I SAID, ONCE, YES.

Q: AND ONLY ONCE?

A: I MEAN ONCE I CAN DEFINITELY REMEMBER.

Q: BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: AND YOU RECALL HER TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE FAILED TO SHOW UP WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A: UMM, AT LEAST TWICE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL IN MAY OF 1994 APPROXIMATELY THAT JUSTIN HAD A COMMUNION THAT THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR?

A: I DON'T. I -- I KNOW THERE WAS SOME EVENT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A COMMUNION OR NOT. THERE WAS SOME EVENT AND I DON'T KNOW THE -- EVERYTHING BEHIND IT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

Q: BUT YOU KNOW HE DIDN'T SHOW UP?

A: I THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A COMMUNION, BUT I THINK THERE WAS AN EVENT IN MAY.

Q: FOR ONE OF THE CHILDREN?

A: FOR ONE OF THE CHILDREN.

Q: AND HE DIDN'T GO?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

THE COURT: DID YOU GO TO THIS EVENT YOURSELF?

THE WITNESS: ME?

THE COURT: YOU.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T GO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS EVENT?

A: I JUST KNOW THERE WAS AN EVENT IN MAY HAPPENING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A COMMUNION.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THAT?

A: I JUST KIND OF REMEMBER. I THOUGHT IT WAS MAYBE A GRADUATION AT THE SUNSHINE SCHOOL. I WAS THINKING IT WAS THAT, NOT A COMMUNION.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT IT?

A: MY MEMORY.

Q: I MEAN WHO TOLD YOU?

A: OH. I -- I THINK IT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I --I THOUGHT IT WAS MAYBE CORA, A FRIEND.

Q: CORA FISCHMAN?

A: I THINK SO, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE IF SHE TOLD ME ABOUT THIS EVENT THAT HE MISSED.

Q: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S ALL AT THIS TIME, BUT I HAVE THE PAGE CITES AND VOLUME CITE FOR THE COURT CONCERNING COUNSEL'S QUESTIONING INTO THIS AREA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KAELIN ON THIS ISSUE?

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. ARE YOU CONCERNED, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE LAST AREAS IN 1994 OR ARE YOU JUST -- OR ONLY THE EARLIER AREAS IN 1993?

THE COURT: OH, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE ENTIRE TIME FRAME, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GRETNA GREEN.

MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, 1994 IS NOT GRETNA GREEN.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY I SAID THE ENTIRE TIME FRAME.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: MR. KAELIN, YOU'RE AWARE OF THE TYPE OF WORK THAT MR. SIMPSON DID DURING THE PERIODS OF TIME THAT YOU WERE BOTH LIVING AT GRETNA GREEN AND AT ROCKINGHAM; WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT HE HAD SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND MANY TIMES BEFORE VERY LARGE AUDIENCES?

A: YES.

Q: SOMETIMES 5,000 PEOPLE?

A: A SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE.

Q: AND YOU'RE ALSO AWARE THAT HE MAKES HIS MONEY AS AN ACTOR AND DOING COMMERCIALS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT THERE WOULD BE TIMES WHEN HE WOULD BE CALLED UNEXPECTEDLY TO EITHER REDO SOME ACTING OR TO TAKE PLACE IN AN ACTING JOB OR A COMMERCIAL?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS ALL SPECULATION. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TIME HE DIDN'T PICK UP THE CHILDREN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: IT'S IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: BUT WHY DON'T WE ASK THE PERTINENT QUESTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M DOING THIS AS BACKGROUND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN JUNE OF 1993, DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT O.J. SIMPSON DID NOT APPEAR TO PICK UP HIS CHILDREN AS SCHEDULED?

A: CAN YOU --

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL -- DO YOU KNOW YOURSELF -- WITHOUT ANYBODY TELLING YOU, DO YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS SCHEDULED TO PICK UP HIS CHILDREN AND HE DID NOT IN JUNE OF 1993?

A: WITHOUT ANYBODY TELLING ME?

Q: WITHOUT ANYBODY TELLING YOU.

A: NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ON THE ONE DAY DURING THE WEEK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS SUPPOSED TO PICK UP HIS CHILDREN AND DIDN'T? DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT?

A: NO.

Q: THESE ARE THINGS THAT WERE TOLD TO YOU BY NICOLE?

A: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE HEARSAY AND WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE ON THOSE GROUNDS ALONE. SO I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO GO FURTHER.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. MR. KAELIN, WITH REGARDS TO THESE TWO INCIDENTS THAT IT'S YOUR BELIEF THAT THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO PICK UP HIS CHILDREN, WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OR ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T PICK UP THE KIDS?

THE WITNESS: WELL, I KNEW FROM NICOLE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: SHE WOULD TELL ME -- SHE WOULD SAY, "O.J. WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE KIDS," OR -- OR THAT O.J. -- WAS FROM NICOLE THAT -- I DIDN'T KNOW HIS SCHEDULE, BUT SHE WOULD TELL ME. SHE WOULD SAY, "OH, HE'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE THEM TO DINNER," LIKE THAT, OR, "THIS WAS THE WEEKEND."

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: INCIDENTS, BUT IT NEVER --

THE COURT: DID YOU EVER LEARN OF ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT DETAINED OR WHY MR. SIMPSON DID NOT FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS?

THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T. I DIDN'T, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM WAS FROM ACTING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM EITHER COUNSEL?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'LL --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS WAS BECAUSE HE HAD A GOLF GAME WITH HIS GOLFING BUDDIES?

A: I'M -- I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID BY NICOLE. I THINK SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT, SOMETHING -- I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOLF.

MS. CLARK: AND, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THIS WITNESS CONCERNING THE RELEVANCE AND THE NATURE OF HIS TESTIMONY. I WOULD LIKE TO CITE THE COURT TO THE SPECIFIC AREAS.

THE COURT: NO. I UNDERSTAND THE AREAS. THE ISSUE IS THE COMPETENCY OF THE WITNESS AND 352 ISSUES.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS OUTSIDE THE WITNESS' PRESENCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THE SIDEBAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO COMPETENCE, SOMEONE WHO IS LIVING WITH THE FAMILY OBVIOUSLY IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS THIS. SO WHAT SHE TOLD HIM AND WHAT HE BECOMES AWARE OF IS RELEVANT TO A CHARACTER WITNESS, WHICH THE COURT IS AWARE DOES ALLOW FOR KNOWLEDGE BASED ON HEARSAY. AND THE REASON WE BELIEVE THAT THIS AREA HAS BEEN OPENED UP BY COUNSEL IS AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 20060, VOLUME 113, QUESTION, LINE 28, BY MR. SHAPIRO.

THE COURT: WAIT. WELL, WAIT. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS, CAN THIS WITNESS TESTIFY TO TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW UP AND PICK UP THE KIDS. THE ANSWER IS NO.

MS. CLARK: WHY NOT?

THE COURT: BECAUSE HE HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

MS. CLARK: WHAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE OF THIS? THIS IS A CHARACTER WITNESS, YOUR HONOR. "IS HE A CARING FATHER?" "YES."

THE COURT: WELL, HE'S DEALT WITH THE KIDS, PERSONALLY SEEN THEM, EYE-BALLED, SEEN THEM TOGETHER.

MS. CLARK: WHAT KIND OF FOUNDATION DO WE HAVE FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER, OF THE CHILDREN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER?

THE COURT: HE'S BEEN WITH THEM. ALL THREE OF THEM HAVE BEEN TOGETHER; THE DEFENDANT, THE CHILDREN AND KATO.

MS. CLARK: THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE OF HIS FAILURE TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN BASED ON HIS INTERACTION WITH NICOLE AND THE CHILDREN IS THEN VALID IMPEACHMENT TO THAT ASSERTION. HE'S GIVING AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER HE'S A CARING AND LOVING FATHER. ALL OF THIS WAS GONE INTO OVER THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION ON CROSS AND ALL OF THIS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF ANY OF THIS? IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE AS WELL. THE COURT ALLOWED IT. ON EVERY OCCASION, THE PEOPLE OBJECTED, AND IT WAS ALLOWED IN. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS? "WAS HE A LOVING FATHER?" "YES." "WAS HE A CARING FATHER?" "YES." WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THAT IF NOT CHARACTER? AND IF CHARACTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED, WHICH IT HAS, THEN THIS WITNESS' OPINION AND KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER IT'S BASED ON HEARSAY OR NOT, IS ADMISSIBLE IMPEACHMENT.

AND LET ME INDICATE TO THE COURT, "HAVE YOU HEARD" FORM OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PERMITTED IN CHARACTER EVIDENCE, PEOPLE VERSUS WAGNER, 13 CAL. 3D. 612.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY I POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU DID NOT PHRASE THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY.

MS. CLARK: I SHOULD HAVE PHRASED IT MORE APPROPRIATELY. I AGREE WITH THE COURT. I WAS TIRED. IT WAS THE END OF THE DAY AND SOMETIMES WE MAKE MISTAKES. I DON'T THINK THAT IT JUSTIFIED ANY FINDING OF BAD FAITH ON OUR PART BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A WITNESS WHO WILL SO TESTIFY. AND THE POINT OF THE QUESTION WAS TO GO INTO CHARACTER EVIDENCE. I SHOULD HAVE PHRASED IT MORE APPROPRIATELY, I AGREE. BUT CERTAINLY BASED ON WHAT COUNSEL HAS BEEN ALLOWED -- COUNSEL OPENED THE DOOR VERY WIDE TO ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE. IF IT WAS A MISTAKE, THAT'S TOO BAD. HE MUST STAND BY THIS QUESTIONING. BUT THAT DOOR IS WIDE OPEN NOW. IS HE A CARING FATHER, IS HE A LOVING FATHER, GOOD FATHER, THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS. NEVERTHELESS, THIS WITNESS' OPINION IS NOW FAIR GAME FOR IMPEACHMENT AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT AS WELL AS THIS WITNESS' OPINION TO IMPEACH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

THE COURT: BUT THIS WITNESS HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: BUT, YOUR HONOR, CAN I SHOW THE COURT --

THE COURT: OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

BRIAN KATO KAELIN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: WHEN YOU WERE LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN WITH NICOLE AND HER CHILDREN, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIVING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU SAW HIM INTERACT WITH THE CHILDREN ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU SAW HIM AT GRETNA GREEN?

A: YES.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE LIVING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, AT THE ACTUAL GRETNA GREEN, ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN TIMES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THAT WAS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR?

A: AT -- ON THE HOUSE. IN THE HOUSE.

Q: AND THAT WAS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR?

A: OH, YES, IT IS.

Q: AND WHERE ELSE DID YOU SEE HIM WITH THE CHILDREN, ALONE WITH THE CHILDREN?

A: WELL, IF HE WAS -- I WOULDN'T BE AROUND IF HE HAD THE CHILDREN. SO I -- I WOULDN'T KNOW.

Q: SO THE ONLY TIMES YOU SAW HIM WITH THE CHILDREN WAS WHEN HE CAME TO VISIT THEM AT GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN HE VISITED WITH THE CHILDREN ON GRETNA GREEN PHYSICALLY?

A: HANGING OUT IN THE HOUSE OR IN THE GUEST HOUSE.

Q: IN THE GUEST HOUSE. AND WHERE WOULD HE BE WITH THE CHILDREN ON THOSE OCCASIONS?

A: IN THE HOUSE.

Q: SO -- HOW MANY OCCASIONS DID IT OCCUR, ON HOW MANY TIMES DID IT OCCUR THAT HE CAME TO VISIT THE CHILDREN, HE WAS IN THE HOUSE WITH THEM AND YOU WERE BACK IN THE GUEST HOUSE?

A: CAN YOU SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

Q: YOU SAID YOU SAW HIM AT GRETNA GREEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR SIX OR SEVEN TIMES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN TIMES, HOW MANY OF THEM INVOLVED THE DEFENDANT BEING IN THE HOUSE, THE MAIN HOUSE WITH THE CHILDREN WHILE YOU WERE BACK IN THE GUEST HOUSE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: ALL OF THEM I --

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL OF THEM. SO FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU ACTUALLY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN? AN HOUR? FIVE MINUTES? 10 MINUTES?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AN HOUR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU OBSERVE HIM WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR ON EACH OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS?

A: NO.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT -- WHAT'S THE LONGEST -- STRIKE THAT. WAS AN HOUR THE LONGEST TIME YOU EVER OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT IN THE COMPANY OF THE CHILDREN?

A: YOU MEAN LIKE A STRAIGHT HOUR --

Q: YES.

A: -- SEEING? YES.

Q: ON OTHER OCCASIONS, WOULD YOU OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR MAYBE FIVE MINUTES?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MANY OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS DID YOU ACTUALLY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT INTERACT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR?

A: PROBABLY TWICE.

Q: OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR YOU SPENT AT GRETNA GREEN THEN, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT ON TWO OCCASIONS WITH THE CHILDREN FOR ONE HOUR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON THE OTHER FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR WHAT; FIVE, 10 MINUTES?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I -- IT WOULD BE OFF AND ON FOR ABOUT 15 TO 20, KIND OF -- IN THE -- YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE THROUGH MY PLACE INTO THE HOUSE. BUT I MEAN I COULD SEE. I WASN'T INTERACTING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT I MEAN IS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN AND HOW HE INTERACTED WITH THEM FOR AN UNBROKEN PERIOD OF TIME.

A: ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES.

Q: SO ON FOUR TO FIVE OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN AT GRETNA GREEN FOR 10 TO 15 MINUTES?

A: YEAH, ABOUT. YES.

Q: AND ON TWO OCCASIONS, ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED HIM WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR?

A: YES.

Q: SO FOR -- YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT OVER A PERIOD OF A YEAR SPENDING TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR THREE TO FOUR HOURS?

A: YES.

Q: TOTAL.

A: MY OBSER -- YES.

Q: YES. AND ON THAT, YOU BASE YOUR OPINION THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A LOVING FATHER?

A: THAT'S NOT WHAT I BASED IT ON, NO.

Q: THAT'S WHAT YOU -- YOU OBSERVED HIM FOR A PERIOD OF THREE TO FOUR HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF ONE YEAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. YES.

Q: THAT'S THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE OF THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO WHEN YOU OFFERED YOUR OPINION TO THIS JURY OF THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN, THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH YOU BASE THAT OPINION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT TO LIVE AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU WERE NO LONGER LIVING WITH THE CHILDREN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND ON OCCASION, THE CHILDREN WOULD COME TO VISIT ROCKINGHAM?

A: UH, YES.

Q: AND WHEN THEY DID, WOULD YOU TAKE CARE OF THEM OFTEN?

A: UMM, NOT OFTEN. IF THEY WERE THERE, I WOULD HANG OUT WITH THEM, YES.

Q: AND ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD DID YOU SEE THE CHILDREN IN THE COMPANY OF THE DEFENDANT?

A: UMM, FOUR, FIVE TIMES.

Q: AND FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME ON EACH OF THOSE OCCASIONS DID YOU SEE THEM IN THE COMPANY OF THE DEFENDANT?

A: OF THOSE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES IN THE COMPANY OF -- UH, WELL, HE WOULD BE WITH THEM. YOU WANT MINUTES YOU MEAN?

Q: YES.

A: WELL, ABOUT 15 MINUTES WHEN I WAS THERE.

Q: OKAY. 15 MINUTES ON EACH OF THOSE FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS WHILE YOU STAYED AT ROCKINGHAM DURING WHICH YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS CHILDREN.

A: RIGHT. IF I DIDN'T GO OFF SOMEWHERE. BUT YES.

Q: SO ALL TOLLED, YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE HOUR WITH HIS CHILDREN?

A: NO. IT'S MORE.

Q: FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS, 15 MINUTES EACH?

A: OH, BUT I'M THINKING OF -- BUT I MENTIONED WE WENT TO A -- UH, LIKE AN EVENT TOGETHER AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY -- THEY WERE TOGETHER BUT SPREAD OUT. SO -- BUT THAT WAS LIKE AN EVENT THAT LASTED LIKE FOUR HOURS.

Q: RIGHT. BUT THAT'S --

A: SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT WASN'T --

Q: I'M ASKING YOU FOR THE TIMES WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT PLAYING AND INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN.

A: OKAY.

Q: RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: YOU GOT THAT? THE EVENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY ALL WENT TO FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR HOURS, THE DEFENDANT WAS OFF DOING THINGS AND MEETING PEOPLE, WASN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE CHILDREN, YOU WERE WATCHING THEM FOR HIM, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE AN OCCASION WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN; WOULDN'T YOU SAY?

A: WELL, YES. AND THEN -- INTERACTING AND THEN GOING OFF AND DOING THINGS. SO YES.

Q: IT WAS BRIEF SPORADIC MOMENTS HE WOULD BE WITH THE CHILDREN, AND THEN HE WOULD GO OFF AND DO WHAT HE HAD TO DO?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE WATCHING THEM FOR HIM, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: SO OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ESTIMATE THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR A SUM TOTAL OF AN HOUR AND A HALF?

A: UH, YES.

Q: SO YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN OVER THE PERIOD OF A YEAR FOR TWO TO THREE HOURS IN 1993; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN OVER THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ON ROCKINGHAM FOR A SUM TOTAL OF AN HOUR AND A HALF; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF HIS -- THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: UH, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T LIKE THE IDEA OF YOU LIVING ON BUNDY WITH NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WELL, WHEN NICOLE DECIDED TO MOVE TO BUNDY, SHE ASKED -- DIDN'T SHE ASK YOU TO MOVE INTO THE EXTRA BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS?

A: ON BUNDY, YES.

Q: AND THE AGREEMENT, WAS THAT GOING TO BE THE SAME AS BEFORE, 500 BUCKS A MONTH FOR THE RENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR BEDROOM AND A BATHROOM; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT LOCATION HAVE A SWIMMING POOL?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT YOU GOING OVER TO LIVE WITH HER AT BUNDY?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BOTH ON DIRECT AND CROSS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE -- DID --

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED ON CROSS IS NOT AN OBJECTION.

THE COURT: NO. BUT WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM BEING UNDER THE SAME ROOF.

MS. CLARK: IT'S FOUNDATIONAL TO ANOTHER AREA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S LEAP TO THE OTHER AREA THEN.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE DEFENDANT WAS -- DID HE -- THE DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE WAY IT WOULD APPEAR IF YOU WERE LIVING ON BUNDY WITH NICOLE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: UH, YES.

Q: HE WAS CONCERNED WITH HOW IT WOULD LOOK FOR ANOTHER MAN TO BE LIVING WITH HIS WIFE -- WITH HIS EX-WIFE; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THIS FOUNDATIONAL FOR SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO THIS?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: COULD WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: OVERRULED AT THIS POINT.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO HIS CONCERN WAS PRIMARILY FOR HIS IMAGE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU APPEARED AT THE GRETNA GREEN LOCATION ON OCTOBER 25TH, 1993, YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT'S BRONCO OUT FRONT WITH THE FLASHERS ON PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND YOU WENT TO THE BACK OF THE AREA, YOU SAW HIM YELLING, HOW LOUD WAS THAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, LOUD.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR HIM YELLING FROM THE STREET -- FROM THE STREET?

A: UMM, NOT WHEN I WAS COMING UP -- YOU KNOW, I HEARD IT RIGHT WHEN I GOT TO THE BACK AREA.

Q: OKAY. WERE YOU AFRAID?

A: WAS I AFRAID FOR --

Q: WERE YOU AFRAID?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HEAR WHAT NICOLE WAS SAYING ON THE TELEPHONE?

A: NO.

Q: DID NICOLE TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS AFRAID OF THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHILE YOU WERE LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN -- STRIKE THAT. KATO THE AKITA, NICOLE'S DOG --

A: YES.

Q: -- NOW, WAS THAT DOG COMFORTABLE AROUND --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: KATO THE DOG, THAT DOG WAS LIVING WITH NICOLE ON GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT DOG COMFORTABLE AROUND THE DEFENDANT?

A: AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, YES.

Q: DID HE EVER BARK WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAME AROUND?

A: HE -- KATO BARKED -- IT WAS KIND OF -- HE WAS A PUPPY AT FIRST. SO HE BARKED A LOT AND THEN HE'D BE -- YEAH, HE'D BARK. BUT HE WAS -- WHEN EVERYBODY WAS TOGETHER, HE WASN'T BARKING.

Q: DID HE BARK AT THE DEFENDANT? DID HE EVER ACT LIKE HE WAS AFRAID OF THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN THE DEFENDANT WOULD COME TO THE GRETNA GREEN LOCATION, WOULD HE PLAY WITH KATO THE DOG?

A: PETTING AND THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CONSIDER PLAYING.

Q: YEAH. PETTING.

A: I MEAN --

Q: DID HE PET THE DOG?

A: YEAH, HE PET THE DOG.

Q: DID THE DOG BARK AT HIM WHEN HE PETTED HIM?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, HE BARKED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. KAELIN, YOU TOLD MR. SHAPIRO THAT THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR ON JUNE THE 12TH WAS THE SAME AS ALWAYS. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?

A: UMM, AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF THAT DAY, I SAID THAT HE WAS TIRED AT ONE POINT AND, UH, IN THE AFTERNOON, HE WAS CONVERSATIONAL. SO YES, I SAID THAT.

Q: OKAY. AND SO WAS HE ALWAYS UPSET? WAS THAT COMMON FOR HIM, MR. KAELIN?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: GROUNDS?

MR. SHAPIRO: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: REMEMBER TESTIFYING EARLIER THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS UPSET DURING THAT DAY?

A: ABOUT A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, A LITTLE BIT UPSET, YES.

Q: AND THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO?

A: UMM, THERE WAS A STATEMENT ABOUT TAKING SIDNEY -- THAT NICOLE TOOK SIDNEY WHEN O.J. WAS GOING TO TALK TO HER AFTER THE RECITAL.

Q: DO YOU RECALL DEFENDANT -- DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING THAT HE WAS UPSET AT THAT POINT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS, YOUR HONOR. HE'S TESTIFIED TO NUMEROUS THINGS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK IT'S CONFUSING TO THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, IF YOU DON'T -- CAN YOU SHOW ME AGAIN? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT -- BUT THAT PAGE I THINK I -- WHERE I SAID --

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY NOW THAT YOU --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO.

THE COURT: COUNSEL GETS TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN EXAMINATION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY RIGHT NOW THAT YOU RECALL TESTIFYING PREVIOUSLY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE OF SIDNEY, OF TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 20132 OF THE TRANSCRIPT. THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. I'M GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU. "QUESTION BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING -- DID YOU SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN HIS FEELINGS BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER THAT HE WOULD HAVE LIKED? "NO. IT WAS -- HE JUST SAID IT. IT WASN'T UNUSUAL. "WAS HE ANGRY? "NO. NOT WHEN HE SAID THAT. "WAS HE AGITATED? "NO." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT TESTIMONY?

A: UH, YES.

Q: AND THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WHAT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH IS, UH, "UPSET" THE WORD, WHAT THE RANGE IS OF "UPSET" AND "ANGRY." BUT YEAH, THERE WAS LIKE UPSETNESS IN THE VOICE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD "UPSET," MR. KAELIN? IS THAT THE PROBLEM?

A: NO. NO. I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

Q: OKAY. YOU'VE TESTIFIED FOR MR. SHAPIRO THAT HE WAS NOT ANGRY OR AGITATED WHEN HE SPOKE OF SIDNEY AND THE RECITAL, AND NOW YOU'VE JUST TOLD US THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE --

A: UH-HUH. YES.

Q: -- OF SIDNEY AND THE RECITAL.

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASK THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THEN -- HOW DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT, MR. KAELIN? WAS THE DEFENDANT UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE OF TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

A: UH, THERE WAS SOME UPSETNESS, YES.

Q: DID THAT UPSETNESS INCREASE AT SOME POINT DURING HIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU AFTER THE RECITAL?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER INCREASED?

A: THE -- THE UPSETNESS AFTER RECITAL, TALKING ABOUT IT? NO.

Q: WAS THERE ANY OTHER REMARK HE MADE ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THE RECITAL IN WHICH HE SEEMED MORE AGITATED OR UPSET THAN WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY?

A: UH, ABOUT THE DRESSES?

Q: YES.

A: UMM, YES. HE SAID THAT ABOUT THE -- WEARING DRESSES WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMOTHERS?

Q: YES.

A: YES. THERE WAS SET -- BUT THEY SET -- THERE WAS UPSETNESS, BUT IT WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF SIDNEY. THEY'RE -- BUT BOTH -- UPSET, BUT MORE WITH THE SIDNEY, NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE HER.

Q: IS THAT THE WAY YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT, MR. KAELIN? IS THAT RIGHT? HE WAS MORE UPSET TALKING ABOUT SIDNEY THAN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT NICOLE? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: THAT -- YES.

Q: DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 20154 OF THE SAME VOLUME. "QUESTION: WHAT WAS -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS DEMEANOR?"

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT LINE?

THE COURT: I BELIEVE 21.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. LINE 14, 20154.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: "ANSWER," YOUR QUESTION, MR. KAELIN, WAS: "ABOUT -- ASKING ABOUT SIDNEY? "QUESTION: YES. "ANSWER: IT WAS -- SHE WAS GREAT, BUT YEAH, SHE WAS GREAT AND SIDNEY WAS WONDERFUL AT THE --" QUESTION WAS, BY THE COURT, "WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR? WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR? "FINE. IT WAS, GIVE ME LIKE VERY HAPPY, NOT SAD, JUST --" DO YOU RECALL GIVING THOSE QUESTIONS -- ANSWERS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS WITH REGARD TO HIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

A: THAT SHE WAS GREAT, YES.

Q: YES. AND MR. SHAPIRO THEN ASKED: "IF YOU RECALL WHAT YOU SAID TO THE GRAND JURY IN RESPONSE TO MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS? "ANSWER: RELAXED, YES. THAT HE WAS RELAXED AND NONCHALANT. "QUESTION: SO THE WORD YOU USED AND MISS CLARK ASKED YOU, DID HE SEEM TO BE AGITATED, UPSET OR NERVOUS?" QUESTION ON PAGE 20156: "CAN YOU TELL WHAT HIS DEMEANOR WAS LIKE WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING SIDNEY'S PERFORMANCE? "IT WAS NONCHALANT. IT WAS RELAXED." THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY AS YOU GAVE IT TO MR. SHAPIRO AND AS YOU GAVE IT TO THE GRAND JURY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: AND NOW YOU'RE TESTIFYING TODAY, SIR, THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT SIDNEY.

A: AT THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT BACK ON JUNE 20TH OF 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: AND NOW YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT ABOUT DURING THE TIME THAT SHE MADE -- THAT HE MADE THE REMARK ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES? WAS HE UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT?

A: MORE UPSET WITH THE SIDNEY STATEMENT, BUT MAYBE JUST A BIT WITH THAT, WITH THE --

Q: JUST A BIT? I'M SORRY?

A: UH, YES. IF -- ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW ME --

Q: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: NO. HE ASKED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO YOUR TESTIMONY NOW IS THAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT THE SIDNEY INCIDENT, BUT JUST A BIT UPSET ABOUT NICOLE, HER TIGHT DRESSES; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING -- NO. I'M ASKING YOU RIGHT NOW.

A: YES.

Q: DIRECTING THE COURT TO PAGE -- COUNSEL TO PAGE 2001 IN VOLUME 112.

THE COURT: 2,000 --

THE WITNESS: IS THIS GRAND JURY?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NO. THIS IS YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS TRIAL, MR. KAELIN. LINE 11, MY QUESTION TO YOU: "WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DEMEANOR, HIS PHYSICAL BODY MOVEMENTS WHEN HE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES?" YOUR ANSWER: "OH, THAT HE WAS UPSET. HE MADE A POINT TO SAY THE TIGHT DRESSES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

"QUESTION: DID YOU SEE HIM CLENCH HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH? "ANSWER: I DIDN'T SEE -- I DIDN'T SEE LIKE THAT, CLENCHING HIS -- HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH. HE WAS UPSET. AND IT WAS LIKE -- ALL THOSE -- WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS, WHEN I MENTIONED, 'WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMAS?'" DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT TESTIMONY, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SAY THERE THAT HE WAS A LITTLE BIT UPSET, DID YOU?

A: UMM, NO.

Q: ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR TESTIMONY NOW, MR. KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: WAS HE UPSET OR WASN'T HE WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT NICOLE AND HER TIGHT DRESSES?

A: NO. NOT -- NOT REAL UPSET. IT --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO TAKE THIS WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS.

THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU NEED TO DO AT SIDEBAR. ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I BE HEARD FIRST?

THE COURT: NO. MISS CLARK IS MAKING THE REQUEST.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO TODAY'S EVENTS AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATIONS, THIS WITNESS HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE RELUCTANT. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY AND HIS DEMEANOR, WHICH DATES BACK TO AS EARLY AS JUNE THE 13TH AND FORWARD, CONTRASTING STATEMENTS HE GAVE TO MR. SHAPIRO ON JUNE THE 14TH, THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS VERY FORTHCOMING ABOUT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION, WHICH I ALREADY POINTED OUT FOR THE JURY, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND JURY SOME SIX DAYS LATER IN WHICH IN RESPONSE TO EQUALLY OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS POSED BY MYSELF AND MR. SHAPIRO, HE INDICATED THERE WAS ONE ARGUMENT HE BARELY REMEMBERED, AND THAT WAS THE 911 TAPE THAT WE'VE HEARD IN THIS COURTROOM, WHICH CAN HARDLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS JUST AN ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME I AGREE WITH YOU HE'S A HOSTILE WITNESS TO THE PROSECUTION. WHAT BENEFIT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THAT?

MS. CLARK: I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM AS OPPOSED TO DIRECT EXAMINE HIM.

THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK HIM LEADING QUESTIONS?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, ANY COMMENT ON THAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

THE COURT: AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, MISS CLARK, BEFORE YOU ANNOUNCE THAT YOU ARE TAKING SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS, YOU NEED TO DO THAT AT SIDEBAR.

MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE.

THE COURT: THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT.

MR. SHAPIRO: ON THAT ISSUE, WE WOULD AGAIN ASK FOR SANCTIONS AND ALSO FOR -- SANCTIONS FOR MISS CLARK'S CONDUCT WHEN I MENTION THESE THINGS WITH HER LAUGHING, ROLLING HER HEAD, ROLLING HER EYES IN TOTAL DISRESPECT OF YOUR HONOR AND THIS COURT.

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT DISRESPECTFUL OF THIS COURT IN THE VERY LEAST. I HIGHLY RESPECT THIS COURT. MR. SHAPIRO'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS LUDICROUS GIVEN THE CONDUCT OF DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, IMPROPER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFTER THE COURT SUSTAINED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTIONS. AND TO HEAR MR. SHAPIRO'S LACK OF ELOQUENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF SANCTIONS IS PREPOSTEROUS.

THE COURT: BUT DO YOU AGREE REQUEST TO TAKE SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE ANNOUNCED TO THE JURY, BUT SHOULD BE ASKED AT SIDEBAR?

MS. CLARK: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND I DO APOLOGIZE. IN ALL SINCERITY, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER, THE HOSTILITY OF THIS WITNESS TO THE PROSECUTION IS I THINK NO SECRET TO ANYONE IN THIS COURTROOM. BUT I DO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. AND IN THE FUTURE, I WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT AT SIDEBAR. I DIDN'T KNOW. YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I'VE NEVER HAD TO DO THIS BEFORE.

THE COURT: NO. REQUEST -- THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO TAKE SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS NEEDS TO BE DONE OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. IN THE FUTURE -- I HOPE THERE WILL NOT BE A FUTURE OCCURRENCE, BUT IF THERE IS, I WILL.

THE COURT: I'M SURE THERE WILL BE. SO I DO NEED TO TELL THE JURY IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK FOR THAT IN FRONT OF THEM.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: BECAUSE TO SUDDENLY ANNOUNCE THIS GUY IS A HOSTILE WITNESS, THAT'S FOR ME TO DECIDE, NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE, NOT FOR YOU TO ANNOUNCE.

MS. CLARK: IT IS. BUT THE COURT WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT RULING IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: NO. I MAKE THE RULING HERE, THAT I AM GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO TAKE HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS, WHICH MERELY MEANS YOU GET WIDER LEEWAY IN ASKING HIM LEADING QUESTIONS. BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL THE BENEFIT YOU GET FROM THAT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ANNOUNCE THAT TO THE JURY IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

MS. CLARK: WELL, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS -- I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. I WISH I HAD KNOWN THAT. I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. I DIDN'T KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE.

THE COURT: I CERTAINLY GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY EARLIER TO DEEM HIM TO BE A HOSTILE WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: YES. AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I REALLY WANTED TO RESIST IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET THIS TO THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. I WAS TOSSING IT AROUND WITH MR. DARDEN WHETHER I SHOULD OR NOT AND FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'M PUSHED TO IT.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD CONCEDE THAT MR. KAELIN PRESENTS QUITE AN ENIGMA AS A WITNESS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT HE IS HOSTILE TO EITHER SIDE OF THIS CASE. I THINK QUITE THE CONTRARY. I THINK HE IS TRYING TO ABSOLUTELY DO HIS BEST TO RELATE WHAT HE KNOWS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT IS NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT THAT HE KNOWS, AND MOST OF THIS IS OVER SEMANTICS. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD ANGRY? MILDLY ANGRY? SERIOUSLY ANGRY?" DEMEANOR IS VERY, VERY HARD TO RELATE TO, ESPECIALLY ON A QUESTION BY QUESTION BASIS AS IT WOULD BE IF ANYBODY WAS TRYING TO RELATE THE DEMEANOR OF THE THREE OF US AT COUNSEL -- AT THE SIDEBAR HERE. AND I THINK THAT THIS WITNESS, IF ASKED APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS, WILL GIVE RESPONSES THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE SO THE JURY CAN FIND THE TRUTH. BUT THE COURT HAS ALREADY GIVEN THIS -- GIVEN THE PROSECUTION GREAT LATITUDE IN LEADING QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: I SUSPECT YOU GET TIRED OF MAKING OBJECTIONS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

MR. SHAPIRO: NO. MR. COCHRAN CONTINUES TO COACH ME ON THOSE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO TAKE THE WITNESS AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME THERE'S SOME CONFLICT HERE IN HIS --

MR. COCHRAN: PROSECUTION WITNESS?

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO TAKE HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS. HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE DETERMINATION IS FOR ME TO MAKE OUT OF THEIR PRESENCE AND THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE COMMENT BY COUNSEL. AND LET ME SEE. WHAT ELSE? HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU HAVE WITH THIS GUY?

MS. CLARK: I MAY VERY WELL GO INTO NOON. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE BREAK, I WOULD HAVE -- WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH HIM TODAY IF WE DID NOT HAVE THAT BOMB SCARE STUFF.

THE COURT: HOW MUCH MORE? YOU'VE ESTABLISHED, YOU KNOW, THAT HE DID AT ONE POINT IN TIME SAY THE DEFENDANT WAS ANGRY THAT AFTERNOON. WHAT MORE DO WE HAVE?

MS. CLARK: ON THIS ISSUE?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: I'M ALMOST DONE WITH THIS ISSUE.

THE COURT: WHAT MORE DO YOU HAVE BESIDES THIS?

MS. CLARK: EVENTS OF JUNE 12 AND THERE'S MORE, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S A LOT MORE.

THE COURT: JUST GIVE ME A PREVIEW. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT?

MS. CLARK: I CAN'T REMEMBER -- I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH HIM THE EVENT THAT TRANSPIRED AFTER THE LIMO DRIVER GOT THERE. JUST A COUPLE AREAS, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S --

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT ALONG.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD SAY WE HAVE VERY, VERY LITTLE RECROSS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO FINISH TODAY.

THE COURT: LET'S SEE HOW FAR WE GET. LET ME ASK THE BAILIFF WHAT ABSOLUTE TIME THAT WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE FOR THE JUROR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE'S CERTAIN RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT REGARD HOW A WITNESS CAN BE QUESTIONED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES, AND THE RULES IN CALIFORNIA ALLOW FOR THE COURT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL TO CHANGE HOW ONE PARTY QUESTIONS THE WITNESS. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD, HOWEVER, MISS CLARK'S COMMENT TO THE COURT THAT MR. KAELIN IS A, QUOTE, HOSTILE WITNESS. DISREGARD THAT COMMENT BY HER. MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES AT THE RECITAL.

A: UMM, YES.

Q: AND IS IT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING THAT TOPIC?

A: YEAH. I MEAN I CAN DO THE VOICE, KIND OF WHAT IT WAS LIKE.

Q: YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE YOUR VOICE SOUND LIKE HIS?

A: NO.

Q: THANK YOU. NOW, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT HE WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT SIDNEY THAN HE WAS ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THAT WAS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE, WAS IT, MR. KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: EARLIER, YOU HAD TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS RELAXED AND NONCHALANT WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY DURING THIS TRIAL THAT HE WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES THAN HE WAS ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE SIDNEY? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW YOU'RE CHANGING THAT TESTIMONY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING, SIR?

A: I -- YES.

Q: NOW, WAS IT ON -- IT WAS ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH THAT HE TOLD YOU MORE THAN ONCE THAT HE WAS UPSET WITH NICOLE -- HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT?

A: IT WAS AFTERNOON.

Q: AND WAS THAT ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT, WAS HE UPSET?

A: NO.

Q: HE WAS NOT UPSET?

A: HE WAS SAYING IT WAS OVER.

Q: AND WHAT -- AND WHAT WAS IT THAT CAUSED HIM TO BRING UP THAT SUBJECT, THAT IT WAS THROUGH -- HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE?

A: IT JUST CAME UP.

Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER HOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A PHONE CALL OR WHAT. IT JUST CAME UP. I WAS JUST READING THE PAPER AND IT CAME UP.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. KAELIN, THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE ON HIS CELL PHONE WHILE HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB IN WHICH HE HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH HER?

A: NO.

Q: HE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. SIMPSON DID NOT TELL YOU THAT --

THE COURT: WAIT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. WHERE DID THIS ONE COME FROM?

MS. CLARK: CELL PHONE RECORDS AND A WITNESS.

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS --

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS IS SOMEONE -- I NEED MR. DARDEN BACK FOR THIS. BUT THE CELL PHONE RECORDS WILL REFLECT THE PHONE CALL FROM THE DEFENDANT'S CELL PHONE TO NICOLE'S PHONE AT 2:18 IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH. COUNSEL HAS THE CELL PHONE RECORDS.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN -- EXCUSE ME -- WILL YOU JOIN US, PLEASE?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS ABOUT THE RECITAL AND ARRANGEMENT AND THE TIME TO BE THERE, AND THIS IS CLEARLY BAD FAITH.

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL?

THE COURT: SURE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WHAT --

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO INDICATED THAT HE FEELS THAT YOU HAVE NO BASIS, NOT A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION.

MS. CLARK: HE HAS THE CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT INDICATE THE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE, THE FOUR MINUTES. THAT ALONE -- I MEAN WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT AND AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB USING THE CELL PHONE. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE GOOD FAITH TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE HAD SPOKEN TO OR HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH NICOLE, WHETHER HE TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE --

THE COURT: I ASSUME YOU HAVE THE THREE GOLFING BUDDIES THAT HE WAS PLAYING GOLF WITH AT THE TIME.

MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T PLAYING GOLF AT THAT TIME. HE HAD COMPLETED HIS GOLF GAME.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING TO TELL US THAT?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS.

THE COURT: YOU SAID YOU HAVE A WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO OBSERVED HIM ON THE CELL PHONE ANGRY, YELLING, AND WE HAVE --

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: HE'S BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS IT.

THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: WOMAN AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB WHO OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TALKING ON HIS CELL PHONE LOOKING VERY ANGRY AND VERY UPSET. WE'VE GOT CELL PHONE RECORDS, AND SHE SAYS IT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON. SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE IN THE AFTERNOON USING HIS CELL PHONE. ALL THE OTHER PHONE CALLS WERE AT NIGHT. SO THERE WAS ONLY ONE CALL IT COULD HAVE BEEN. IT WAS -- WENT ON FOR FOUR MINUTES.

THE COURT: SO THERE'S ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON?

MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM.

THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY MATCH THE TIME, I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON?

MS. CLARK: OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS, BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB UNTIL ABOUT 2:30 OR SO, AND THIS WITNESS OBSERVED HIM ON HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB AND SHE THOUGHT THAT TIME WAS 4:00 O'CLOCK, BUT SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME. IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS AROUND 2:00, 2:30 WHEN HE WAS USING HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB, AND THAT PHONE CALL WAS TO NICOLE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND BAD FAITH. THIS IS PUSHED BEYOND THE LIMITS OF FAIR -- PROPRIETY OF FAIR PLAY AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. THERE IS -- FIRST OF ALL, THIS WITNESS HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT. THAT'S FOR OPENERS. SO WE GO TO THE HEARSAY THING. IF THE PROPER WITNESS HAD BEEN HERE, IT WOULD STILL BE AN IMPROPER QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S AT LEAST AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTE TIME DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE TIME THE WITNESS PURPORTS TO SEE HIM ON THE PHONE AND TIME OF THIS ALLEGED PHONE CALL. AND WE CAN SAY AS AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT THIS PHONE CALL WAS ABOUT ARRANGING FOR THE TIMES AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CHILDREN WOULD BE TRANSPORTED AND THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR TICKETS, FOR SEATING. BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S CASE. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE AND WHAT THEY DID THURSDAY IS SANCTIONABLE AND IS CONTEMPTUOUS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, MR. SHAPIRO IS RIDICULOUS. SO I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO DIGNIFY THOSE RIDICULOUS REMARKS WITH A RESPONSE. WE HAVE THE CELL PHONE RECORDS AND WE HAVE THE WITNESS THAT MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE CONVERSATIONS SHE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT HAVING ON THE CELL PHONE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN THE CALL AT 2:18 REFLECTED ON HIS CELL PHONE BILL AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB. THIS WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR DURING THAT DAY, AND HE INDICATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL. JUST BEFORE I ASKED THE QUESTION -- HE SAID THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL, I ASKED, "WHAT PRECIPITATED HIS REMARK TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?" HE SAID THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL.

I THEN ASKED HIM, "WERE YOU -- DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL HE MADE TO NICOLE THAT AFTERNOON ON HIS CELL PHONE FROM THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB IN WHICH THEY HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT, IN WHICH THEY ARGUED?" IT WAS A GOOD FAITH QUESTION BASED ON EVIDENCE WE INTEND TO PRESENT IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS A HEATED CONVERSATION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND NICOLE THAT AFTERNOON. AND THIS WITNESS SEEMED TO BE REFERRING TO THAT VERY THING, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED HIM, "DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL IN WHICH THEY HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT?" WE HAVE GOOD FAITH BELIEF -- NOT JUST GOOD FAITH BELIEF. WE HAVE PROOF THAT WE WILL PRESENT THIS TO THIS JURY TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION. NOW, THE WITNESS' RESPONSE OBVIOUSLY LED ME TO SUSPECT THAT HE MAY KNOW ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MY LAST QUESTION TO YOU, MR. KAELIN, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT BEFORE THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU -- MADE THAT REMARK TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH AROUND 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH, THAT HE TOLD YOU HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE WHILE HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB ON HIS CELL PHONE?

A: NO, HE DID NOT TELL ME THAT.

Q: HE DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS HE HAD HAD WITH NICOLE DURING THAT DAY BEFORE 3:00 O'CLOCK?

A: HE DID NOT, NO.

Q: AFTER THE REMARK HE MADE TO YOU ABOUT HE AND NICOLE BEING THROUGH AT ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK ON JUNE THE 12TH, DID THE SUBJECT OF HE AND NICOLE BEING THROUGH COME UP AGAIN?

A: AFTER 3:00 O'CLOCK?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER THE RECITAL?

A: AFTER.

Q: AND AFTER THE RECITAL, HE REMARKED TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER HE TOLD YOU ABOUT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES?

A: BEFORE OR AFTER? IT WAS IN THE SAME FRAME. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THAT LINE.

Q: OKAY. SO HE WAS -- WAS HE -- HE WAS STILL UPSET WHEN HE TOLD YOU HE WAS -- HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH WHEN HE WAS SPEAKING TO YOU AFTER THE RECITAL?

A: AFTER THE RECITAL, YES.

Q: AND THEN HE TOLD YOU A THIRD TIME DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH, DIDN'T HE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAME UP THERE, AT THAT POINT.

Q: WELL, DID HE EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

A: HE DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHY. HE WAS COMMENTING ON THE DRESS.

Q: HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND AT THAT TIME, DIDN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE TOLD YOU HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER, DIDN'T HE?

A: NO.

Q: NO, NO. THROUGH WITH NICOLE, DIDN'T HE?

A: OH, YES.

Q: BUT HE WAS UPSET AND HE TOLD YOU HE WAS -- HE ACTED UPSET WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES, DIDN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN WHY, IF HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND AND HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE, HE WAS STILL UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE EXPLAIN -- AND HE ALSO TOLD YOU -- HE ALSO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HER NOT BEING ABLE TO WEAR THOSE TIGHT DRESSES WHEN SHE GOT OLDER. REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE WAS STILL UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT, WASN'T HE?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: DID HE EXPLAIN WHY HE WAS THINKING OR UPSET ABOUT WHETHER SHE COULD STILL WEAR THOSE TIGHT DRESSES IN HER OLD AGE IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

A: SAY IT AGAIN?

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHY, EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER AND WEARING TIGHT DRESSES WHEN SHE GOT OLDER IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IT WAS IN MID MAY OR LATE MAY OF 1994 THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH FOR GOOD, THAT IT WAS FINALLY OVER WITH THEM?

A: YEAH. IT HAPPENED AROUND MAY THAT THEY WERE -- I CAN'T GIVE YOU LIKE THE EXACT DATE. THEY WERE ON AND OFF AND IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THERE. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DATE.

Q: OKAY. BUT IT WAS AROUND THE END OF MAY OF 1994 THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT'S IT, WE'RE DONE?

A: YES.

Q: IT'S OVER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES. IT WAS IN MAY THAT IT WAS OVER.

Q: BUT THEN HE REMARKED TO YOU AGAIN THREE TIMES ON JUNE THE 12TH THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU RECALL THAT THE SMALL BLACK KNAPSACK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU SAW ON THE DRIVEWAY AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM THE GARAGE, ON YOUR SECOND TRIP BACK TO THE GARAGE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE THAT SMALL BLACK KNAPSACK WHEN YOU LEFT WITH THE DEFENDANT TO GO TO MC DONALD'S?

A: I DID NOT SEE IT, NO.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM MC DONALD'S EITHER, DID YOU?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: NOW, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE BLACK KNAPSACK THE FIRST TIME YOU WALKED BACK TO THE GARAGE BEFORE YOU LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T NOTICE IT.

Q: BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE WITHOUT YOU NOTICING IT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: IT'S FAIR.

Q: THE FIRST TIME -- THE FIRST TIME YOU NOTICED THE KNAPSACK WAS WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM THE GARAGE THE SECOND TIME YOU WENT TO CHECK FOR THE NOISES, CORRECT?

A: YES. CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT WAS ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU NOTICED THAT KNAPSACK, HOW FAR WAS THE DEFENDANT FROM IT?

A: 20 FEET?

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: ABOUT 20 FEET.

Q: 20 FEET? WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU SAW THAT KNAPSACK?

A: UMM, BY THE DOORWAY?

Q: THE FRONT DOOR?

A: BY THE -- WHERE THE GOLF CLUBS WOULD BE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: HE WAS IN THE ENTRYWAY OF HIS HOUSE?

A: NOT IN THE HOUSE. JUST IN THAT SIDEWALK AREA. THAT'S WHERE I REMEMBER I THINK.

Q: AND AFTER THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT HE WOULD GO AND GET THE KNAPSACK, YOU NEVER SAW IT AGAIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, THAT KNAPSACK, WAS IT BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD A KNIFE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THAT KNAPSACK BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD BLOODY CLOTHING AND BLOODY SHOES?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. NO. HE'S ALREADY DESCRIBED THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BAG.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATED EARLIER IT WAS DARK IN THE FRONT LAWN AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED ALSO THAT THERE WAS A STREETLIGHT, BUT IT DID NOT ILLUMINATE THE FRONT LAWN AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE, MR. KAELIN, THAT THERE ARE NO LIGHTS THAT DIRECTLY LIGHT THE FRONT LAWN AREA?

A: I'M SORRY?

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THERE ARE NO LIGHTS THAT DIRECTLY LIGHT THE FRONT LAWN AREA?

A: CORRECT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, MR. KAELIN, YOU SPENT TIME WITH THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE THE 12TH AS YOU'VE INDICATED TO US EARLIER; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW NO INJURY TO HIS HAND ANY TIME THAT NIGHT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE ANY INJURY TO HIS HAND ON JUNE -- ON JUNE THE 11TH ON SATURDAY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM ON JUNE THE 11TH, SATURDAY?

A: YES, I THINK SO. YES. YES. IT WAS AT -- THAT WAS THE NIGHT OF THE -- A PARTY OF A -- A BALL, RIGHT?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: THEN I SAW HIM SATURDAY.

Q: YOU SAW HIM.

A: YES.

Q: SO THERE WAS NO INJURY TO HIS HAND ON SATURDAY EITHER, WAS THERE?

A: NOT THAT I SAW.

Q: I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1003. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, MR. KAELIN?

A: I THOUGHT I SAW IT ON TELEVISION ONCE.

Q: OKAY. IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 AT THE RECITAL FOR HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY?

A: YES.

Q: I WANT YOU TO EXAMINE THE PHOTOGRAPH. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE IN CLOSER ON HIS LEFT HAND. NOT THAT CLOSE. SEE ANY CUT OR INJURY ON THAT LEFT HAND, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: ON THE MIDDLE FINGER, SEE ANY CUT?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: AND HE GOT BACK FROM THAT RECITAL TO ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT TIME?

A: UMM, I BELIEVE ABOUT 6:30, 7:00.

Q: 6:30 OR 7:00?

A: YES. THAT'S WHEN I SAW HIM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT BACK. I DIDN'T SEE HIM DRIVE UP.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE BY THE LIMO AT ABOUT 11:00 P.M. ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, YOU TOLD HIM -- YOU SAID EARLIER YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THE NOISES THAT YOU HEARD, THE BANGS ON YOUR WALL, YOUR PICTURE MOVING, RIGHT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU ALSO TOLD HIM THAT YOU WERE AFRAID SOMEBODY MIGHT BE OUT THERE ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY WHEN YOU LEARNED THERE HAD BEEN NO EARTHQUAKE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE COVERED THIS AREA.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU TOLD HIM YOU WERE AFRAID SOMEONE WAS OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO EARTHQUAKE, DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL THE POLICE?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL WESTEC?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN HE CALLED YOU LATER FROM THE AIRPORT AT ABOUT 11:40, HE ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM ON THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL THE POLICE?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL WESTEC?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU TO DO ANYTHING TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THOSE BANGS ON YOUR WALL?

A: UMM, NO.

Q: NOW, YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND AT THE TIME YOU SPOKE TO THEM, YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT A BLOODY GLOVE HAD BEEN FOUND ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY AT ROCKINGHAM OUTSIDE YOUR WALL?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN A CASE IN WHICH THE -- MR. SIMPSON WAS THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, ON JUNE THE 13TH THEN, AFTER YOU -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE, YOU TOLD THEM ABOUT THE BANGS ON YOUR WALL?

A: I DID.

Q: AND YOU TOLD THEM YOU HEARD THOSE BANGS ABOUT 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO TELL THEM THAT YOU HAD GONE OUT TWICE TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THOSE NOISES?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS WAS AFTER YOU HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THIS WAS AT THE POLICE STATION WHEN THEY TOOK A FORMAL REPORT, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO TELL THEM ABOUT SEEING THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER AT ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK?

A: YES.

Q: YOU TOLD THEM ALL ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT AS YOU'VE TOLD US; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THEY DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE PRIOR TO JUNE THE 12TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: THEY DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT ANY INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE, DID THEY?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN LATER ON THAT DAY, YOU WENT BACK TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE POLICE HAD TOLD YOU NOT TO GO BACK TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE COVERED THIS ALREADY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: CORRECT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL, YOU GOT A PHONE CALL FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY, MR. WEITZMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GOT A PHONE CALL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A FEW MINUTES, BUT YES, I GOT A PHONE CALL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: VERY SHORTLY AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT MR. CRAMER'S HOUSE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND AFTER YOU GOT -- AND AT -- AFTER THAT PHONE CALL, YOU RECEIVED ANOTHER PHONE CALL FROM MR. WEITZMAN AND THE DEFENDANT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU RECEIVED THOSE PHONE CALLS, YOU MADE GRANT CRAMER LEAVE THE ROOM, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I WAS IN A DIFFERENT ROOM AND HE WASN'T AROUND. I DON'T THINK I ASKED HIM, BUT I WAS ALONE. HE WASN'T -- HE WAS IN A DIFFERENT AREA.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM TO LEAVE YOU ALONE WHILE YOU SPOKE TO THEM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: YOU DON'T BELIEVE SO?

A: I -- I COULD HAVE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER. YOU COULD HAVE?

A: I COULD HAVE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: AND IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND THE DEFENDANT, DID MR. WEITZMAN ASK YOU WHAT HAD HAPPENED AT THE POLICE STATION?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: HAVEN'T WE GONE OVER THIS ONCE BEFORE?

MS. CLARK: NOT THIS PART, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS DIFFERENT AND TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE -- IS DIFFERENT THAN I'VE GONE INTO. IT IS.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: I THINK SO, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. WEITZMAN ASKED YOU WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE POLICE, DIDN'T HE?

A: I THINK SO.

Q: AND THEN HE SAID -- AND THEN YOU SAID TO HIM, "ALL I CAN DO IS TELL THE TRUTH"; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: I SAID THAT, YES. THEY BOTH DID AND I SAID THAT THOUGH.

Q: AND THAT'S WHEN -- AND AFTER YOU TOLD HIM WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE POLICE, THAT'S WHEN YOU SAID, WELL, ALL YOU CAN DO IS TELL THE TRUTH; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT YOU WERE INCRIMINATING THE DEFENDANT WITH YOUR STATEMENTS, DID YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU -- WHEN YOU REVIEWED THE POLICE REPORT THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN OF YOUR STATEMENT GIVEN ON JUNE THE 13TH, THAT YOU MADE SOME CORRECTIONS TO IT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE THE CORRECTIONS IN THE REPORT, A SUBSEQUENT REPORT THAT THEY FILED FOR YOU?

A: I -- YEAH, I SAW. I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I REMEMBER THEY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS I THINK.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE DISCOVERY PAGES 347, 348, 349 AND 707 CONTAINING THE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE OF BRIAN KAELIN MADE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND ON JUNE THE 17TH. I WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S --

THE CLERK: 144.

THE COURT: 144.

MS. CLARK: 144?

THE COURT: 144.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

(PEO'S 144 FOR ID = DISC. PAGES)

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. WELL, WE CAN MARK THIS NEXT ONE. THE PRINTOUT OF THE BLOWUP OF THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS DEFENDANT'S 1103.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BE PEOPLE'S 145.

MS. CLARK: 1003.

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 145.

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 145. THANK YOU.

(PEO'S 145 FOR ID = PRINTOUT OF BLOWUP)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE POLICE REPORTS THAT I'VE JUST MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 144 AND ASK YOU TO REVIEW THEM AND TELL US IF THESE ARE THE STATEMENTS YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE, BOTH THE ORIGINAL REPORT AND THE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU REQUESTED THEY MAKE.

A: DO I READ THIS TOO?

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: THAT PAGE AS WELL, READ IT? THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, THE WITNESS HAS A QUESTION AS TO THE LAST PAGE.

THE WITNESS: AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THAT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. HAVE YOU READ THEM? NO, IT'S OKAY. HAVE YOU READ ALL OF THESE, MR. KAELIN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ARE THESE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF ALL OF YOUR STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE MADE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE THE 17TH?

A: YEAH. PRETTY MUCH, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THE REPORT ON JUNE THE 17TH, DOES THAT CONTAIN THE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU WANTED THEM TO PUT DOWN TO YOUR JUNE 13TH REPORT?

A: WITH THE ADDRESS CHANGE, YES, I THINK SO, AND I PUT THE BAG IN THE CAR, NOT THE LIMO DRIVER. YES.

Q: YES. AND THAT IT WAS SEVERAL MOMENTS LATER AFTER YOU WAVED AT THE LIMO DRIVER WHEN YOU APPROACHED THE GATE AND SPOKE TO THE DRIVER?

A: YES.

Q: IS -- ARE THOSE THE --

A: YES.

Q: -- CORRECTIONS YOU REQUESTED THEY MAKE?

A: YES.

Q: SO DO THESE REPORTS ACCURATELY CONTAIN THE STATEMENT YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE THE 17TH?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, THAT YOU HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. SHAPIRO A FEW WEEKS AGO. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS IT TAPE-RECORDED?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: WERE ANY NOTES TAKEN?

A: I -- HE HAD A BOOK OPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF HE TOOK NOTES. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO.

Q: WAS ANY REPORT PREPARED?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IN COURT HERE?

A: A GENERAL OUTLINE SORT OF.

Q: ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS THAT HE WOUND UP ASKING HERE IN COURT?

A: JUST SOME.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY MEETINGS WITH MR. SHAPIRO LAST WEEK, WEDNESDAY NIGHT?

A: LAST WEEK WEDNESDAY NIGHT? NO.

Q: THURSDAY NIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF BUDDY MONASH?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH MR. MONASH, SIR, LAST WEEK?

A: NO.

Q: HOW ABOUT THE WEEK BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: HOW ABOUT OVER THIS WEEKEND? DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. MONASH OVER THIS WEEKEND?

A: NO.

Q: WHO IS MR. MONASH?

A: UH, BUDDY MONASH -- I'M WITH MICHAEL PLOTKIN ENTERTAINMENT, WHO'S HERE, AND IT'S HIS PARTNER.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU -- DID YOUR -- SO BUDDY MONASH, IS HE ONE OF YOUR LAWYERS?

A: NO. MICHAEL IS. HE'S AT THE FIRM, BUT MICHAEL PLOTKIN IS MY ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER. HE'S HERE.

Q: AND HE'S HERE, RIGHT.

A: YES.

Q: AND SO BUDDY MONASH WORKS WITH MICHAEL PLOTKIN, WHO IS YOUR LAWYER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: UMM, YEAH. THEY HAVE A FIRM TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WORK THE SAME -- THE SAME THINGS TOGETHER.

Q: HAS MICHAEL PLOTKIN MET WITH MR. SHAPIRO?

A: UMM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: HAS BUDDY MONASH MET WITH MR. SHAPIRO?

A: NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT ON MONDAY EVENING AT ROCKINGHAM -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, YOU GOT AT LEAST TWO PHONE CALLS FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER, MR. WEITZMAN; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE COVERED THIS FIVE TIMES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THE DEFENDANT ASKED YOU TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE ALSO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I -- I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT, TO GO OVER TO THE HOUSE FOR A MEETING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT?

A: I -- I DON'T.

Q: WAS IT MR. WEITZMAN THAT ASKED YOU TO GO OVER AND HAVE A MEETING AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH?

A: I -- IT COULD --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SOMEONE ON THE TELEPHONE WHO CALLED YOU FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON JUNE THE 13TH WHILE YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S PLACE ASKED YOU TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING THAT DAY, DIDN'T THEY?

A: I CAN'T BE 100 PERCENT POSITIVE. I CAN'T. I MEAN I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, DIDN'T YOU?

A: AT SOME POINT, YES.

Q: AND I POINTED OUT A FILM CLIP TO YOU OF THE SHIRT YOU WERE WEARING?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DIDN'T CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES FOR THREE DAYS, DIDN'T YOU, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: YOU INDICATED YOU WORE THAT SAME SHIRT FOR TWO DAYS, TWO OR THREE DAYS?

A: COULD HAVE BEEN -- YEAH, I COULD HAVE BEEN -- I -- YES. TWO DAYS. I THINK I DID.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM AND YOU WORE THE SAME SHIRT FOR TWO DAYS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: HMM.

Q: THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SIR.

A: YEAH, I DID. I DON'T KNOW IF I CHANGED AND PUT IT BACK ON, BUT YES, I HAD IT ON FOR TWO DAYS.

Q: WHO ASKED YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING ON JUNE THE 13TH?

A: I DON'T THINK I EVER MET MR. WEITZMAN.

Q: WHO ASKED YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CATHY RANDA, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: IT COULD HAVE BEEN CATHY. COULD IT -- COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE DEFENDANT?

A: IT COULD HAVE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN MR. WEITZMAN?

A: POSSIBLE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN ALL THREE?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH AND YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, WAS HE CRYING?

A: UMM, NO.

Q: DID HE SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT BACK AT ROCKINGHAM HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD SAY HE WAS AT HOME THAT NIGHT BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M.?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: UMM, SOMEWHAT, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN HE SAID THAT YOU COULD SAY -- WHEN THE DEFENDANT SAID YOU COULD SAY HE WAS AT HOME ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AND YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T SAY THAT, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, ISN'T IT? YOU COULDN'T SAY THAT HE WAS HOME BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 O'CLOCK?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS IT TRUE THAT YOU COULD NOT SAY THE DEFENDANT WAS AT HOME BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 O'CLOCK?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: YOU LEFT HIS PRESENCE AT 9:35; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: UH, YES.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM AGAIN AND YOU WERE NOT IN HIS PRESENCE AGAIN UNTIL 11:00 P.M.; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL THIS JURY WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M., SIR?

A: NO, I CAN NOT.

Q: CAN YOU TELL THIS JURY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M.?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT REPORTER: YOUR HONOR, I NEED TO CHANGE PAPER.

THE COURT: HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE PAPER.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. KAELIN.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: HAS THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN PUT TO YOU MADE YOU NERVOUS AT ALL?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AFRAID OF MISS CLARK?

A: NOT AFRAID OF HER, NO.

Q: DOES SHE SCARE YOU?

A: NO. I MEAN --

Q: DOES SHE MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE?

A: WELL, CERTAIN QUESTIONS, YES.

Q: WHY IS THAT?

A: BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO DO MY BEST.

Q: AND DO YOU THINK SHE'S GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO YOUR BEST AND TO BE FAIR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES SHE INTIMIDATE YOU AT ALL?

A: YES.

Q: HOW'S THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: BY HER JOB.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU DOING YOUR BEST TO TELL THE TRUTH?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT IN TRYING TO DESCRIBE CERTAIN EVENTS, THAT SOMETIMES JUST USING WORDS ISN'T ENOUGH?

A: YES.

Q: FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN MISS CLARK WAS TRYING TO GET YOU TO SAY THAT --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THAT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN MISS CLARK WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT O.J. SIMPSON WAS UPSET ON JUNE THE 12TH WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM AFTER THE RECITAL, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WOULD MEAN WHEN YOU WERE SAYING SOMEBODY IS UPSET?

A: MY DESCRIPTION OF WHAT UPSET IS?

Q: YES. AND WHAT -- AND WHAT YOU WERE VIEWING O.J. SIMPSON AS -- BEHAVIOR ON THAT DAY SO THE JURY CAN UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WERE FEELING AND HOW HE WAS FEELING AND WHAT THIS CONVERSATION WAS REALLY ABOUT.

A: OKAY. OKAY. SO START WITH THE SIDNEY?

Q: YES.

A: WELL, "NICOLE DIDN'T LET ME SEE SIDNEY. I WANT TO SEE MY DAUGHTER. I WANT TO SEE HER." AND, UH, "OH, BOY," KIND OF LIKE, "I WANT TO SEE MY DAUGHTER," AND THEN, UH, "THEY'RE WEARING THESE TIGHT OUTFITS THAT THESE -- I DON'T KNOW, KATO. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN WEAR THESE TIGHT OUTFITS. THAT'S -- THEY'RE GOING TO BE GRANDMAS ONE DAY. I MEAN CAN THEY WEAR THOSE?"

Q: WAS THAT THE TONE OF VOICE?

A: CAN -- ACTOR, SO -- THEY -- MORE OF A -- NO. IT WAS -- IT WAS SORT OF, "THEY CAN'T BE WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS." UH, BUT IT WAS -- A DEGREE OF UPSET, IT'S SUCH A HARD THING TO -- I -- BEING UPSET, UH, IT WASN'T THROWING THINGS. IT WASN'T, "SHE'S WEARING THAT MINISKIRT." IT WASN'T LIKE THAT. IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION. IT'S, "WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE WEARING -- WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE GRANDMAS? THEY CAN'T WEAR MINISKIRTS."

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION?

A: I LISTENED, KIND OF LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T FIND THE TONE THREATENING, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: I MEAN, YOU'VE SAID THIS IN -- IN KIND OF A MATTER OF FACT WAY, BUT WITH -- WITH A LITTLE OF -- A LITTLE EMOTION. IS THAT THE WAY YOU WOULD DESCRIBE O.J. SIMPSON?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES. IT WAS A LITTLE -- THERE WAS SOME EMOTION IN THE VOICE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT ABOUT BODY LANGUAGE? DID YOU SEE ANY HOSTILITY? DID YOU SEE ANY PENT-UP ANGER COME THROUGH?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE HE WAS SITTING DOWN. SO I DIDN'T.

Q: NOW, YOU KNEW THAT FROM MAY OF 1993 TO MAY OF 1994, NICOLE WAS TRYING TO GET BACK INTO A FORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH O.J.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU GIVE ME THOSE DATES AGAIN? I'M SORRY.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: FROM MAY OF 1993, WHEN YOU WERE AT GRETNA GREEN, TO MAY OF 1994, YOU KNEW THAT NICOLE WAS TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH O.J.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS A TEAM THING. THEY BOTH WERE GOING OFF AND ON. I DON'T THINK IT WAS ONE OR THE OTHER. IT WAS BOTH WORKING TOGETHER OR HOWEVER IT WAS -- HOWEVER IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. I MEAN, MAYBE SHE WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK AND HE WASN'T AND -- IT WAS OFF AND ON. I CAN'T --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU KNEW THAT O.J. HAD COMMITTED TO NICOLE THAT THEY WOULD GIVE IT A YEAR TO TRY TO WORK OUT THINGS AND SEE IF THEY CAN GET BACK TOGETHER AS A FAMILY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THERE WAS SOME KIND OF COMMITMENT, YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW IN EARLY MAY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- THAT O.J. HAD CONCLUDED THAT IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK; IT WAS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THEY WERE BOTH GOING TO HAVE TO LEAD THEIR OWN LIVES SEPARATELY?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO KNEW THAT PAULA BARBIERI HAD COME BACK INTO HIS LIFE IN MAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS END OF APRIL OR MAY, BUT YES, THEY GOT BACK TOGETHER.

Q: AND WAS IT YOUR PERSONAL FEELING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN O.J. AND NICOLE GET BACK TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: WHY IS THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I JUST WANTED THEM TO BE HAPPY IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE HAPPY.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: BECAUSE YOU REALLY LIKED BOTH PEOPLE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU REALLY LIKE THE KIDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WOULD REALLY HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THIS FAMILY GET BACK TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN O.J. TOLD YOU THAT IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK, HE HAD NO ANGER, DID HE?

A: NO.

Q: HE HAD NO HOSTILITY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HE HAD NO HOSTILITY, DID HE?

A: NO.

Q: IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF FACT THING, "KATO, YOU KNOW, IT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT"?

A: YES.

Q: AND -- BUT HE ALWAYS TOLD YOU THAT HE STILL WANTED TO HAVE A FAMILY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- AND BE PART OF A FAMILY LIFE --

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION, COUNSEL?

MS. CLARK: HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HE TOLD YOU HE WANTED TO --

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, YOU'RE A FATHER OF A NINE-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.

A: 10 NOW.

Q: 10-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. AND DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN BEING A FATHER?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN ABILITY TO FORM AN OPINION AS TO THE TYPES OF PARENTS PEOPLE ARE?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THE COURT RULED THIS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PEOPLE'S -- THIS WHOLE LINE OF QUESTIONING IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: I DID. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS TOO FAR. YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THAT HE'S A PARENT. YOU'VE ASKED HIS OPINION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHILDREN, BETWEEN THE CHILDREN AND MR. SIMPSON. I ALLOWED YOU TO DO THAT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU THINK YOU HAD AN ABILITY DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU KNEW O.J. SIMPSON AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON TO FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHAT TYPE OF FATHER O.J. SIMPSON WAS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: OF THE TIMES I'VE SEEN HIM, YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, FROM MAY TO MAY OF '94, THIS ONE YEAR, THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS SPENDING NIGHTS AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HOME?

A: THERE WAS TIMES WHEN HE -- WHEN HE WAS AT BUNDY.

Q: AND THERE WERE --

A: HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW THE DATES, BUT YEAH, THERE WERE TIMES.

Q: AND THERE WERE TIMES WHEN SHE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES. THERE WAS TIMES THERE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS ON AND OFF, DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, THIS WAS ON, WASN'T IT, FROM 93 TO '94?

A: FROM '93, '94?

Q: MAY OF '93 TO MAY OF '94, THIS WAS A CONTINUING ONGOING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN O.J. AND NICOLE.

A: I -- I KNOW THERE WAS THAT COMMITMENT AND I -- AND CAN'T GIVE THE EXACT DATE, BUT I -- I -- FROM MAY OF '93, I KNOW THEY HAD A COMMITMENT TO GO -- MAKE THE DISTANCE TO SEE IF IT WAS GOING TO WORK, AND I CAN'T GIVE THE EXACT DATE. I JUST CAN'T. I -- IT'S VERY HARD TO --

Q: THAT PERIOD OF TIME SOUND APPROXIMATELY CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE ALSO AWARE THAT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT O.J.'S BUSINESS WOULD TAKE HIM OUT OF TOWN?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IT WAS PART OF HIS JOB TO HAVE TO TRAVEL?

A: YES.

Q: REGARDING THE CONDITIONS AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE ENTIRE GROUNDS ARE PROFESSIONALLY LIT AT NIGHT; ARE THEY NOT?

A: UMM, YES. I -- IT'S -- IT'S LIKE THERE WAS DIM LIGHTS THAT ARE ON THE BOTTOM THOUGH. SO THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S DARK. THERE'S STILL THAT LIGHTING, BUT IT'S STILL DARK -- THE -- YOU'VE BEEN -- IT'S LIKE A DIM LIGHT.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TREES? DON'T THE TREES HAVE LIGHTS IN THEM?

A: I THINK THE TREE WHERE THE -- THE SNOW WHITE STUFF IS, IT'S -- THAT ONE TREE IS LIT.

Q: BUT AREN'T THERE OTHER TREES IN THE FRONT THAT ARE ALSO LIT WITH LIGHTS THAT ARE BOTH GOING UP INTO THE TREES AND DOWN?

A: I KNOW THAT ONE IS. AND THE OTHER TREES MIGHT BE TO THE SIDE OF THAT. TO THE -- TO THE AREA OF THAT -- OF WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE IS, I DON'T REMEMBER A BRIGHT LIGHT THERE. I JUST DON'T.

Q: REGARDING MR. SIMPSON'S LUGGAGE, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN HIS LUGGAGE BEFORE TO ANY GREAT EXTENT, HAD YOU?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND CERTAINLY YOU WOULD HAVE NO OCCASION TO SEE IT AFTERWARDS, WOULD YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WASN'T YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PACK AND UNPACK HIS BAGS?

A: NEVER.

Q: WAS IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF HIS LUGGAGE?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WHILE -- WHEN YOU MOVED INTO ROCKINGHAM, DID O.J. SIMPSON INSTRUCT YOU THAT IF NICOLE NEEDED ANY HELP AT ALL, THAT YOU WERE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING IN THE PAST WITH HER?

A: HE DIDN'T INSTRUCT ME THAT. IF SHE CALLED, I WOULD DO SOMETHING.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT THAT WAS OKAY, THAT YOU COULD DO THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE IN ANY WAY ADVISE YOU OR TELL YOU NOT TO DO ANYTHING THAT O.J. HAD DONE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- THAT NICOLE HAD ASKED FOR IN THE PAST?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU AWARE THAT FROM AUGUST TO FEBRUARY OF '93 TO '94, THAT O.J. HAD LIVED IN HIS APARTMENT IN NEW YORK WORKING?

A: HE HAD AN APARTMENT IN NEW YORK, RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION. SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT HE HAD AN APARTMENT THERE, YES, AND FOOTBALL WAS GOING ON.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND SO HIS BUSINESS AND WORK TOOK HIM OUT OF THE CITY?

A: YES.

Q: AND OUT OF THE STATE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT YOUR FEELING THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS CONTENT WITH HIS LIFE IN MAY OF 1994?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS HE HAPPY WITH HIS LIFE-STYLE IN MAY OF 1994?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SEEM TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH WOMEN IN MAY OF 1994?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU TOLD US LAST WEEK THAT YOU DID NOT KEEP TRACK OF O.J.'S COMINGS AND GOINGS?

A: I DID NOT, CORRECT.

Q: SO IF I WAS TO ASK YOU THAT ON JUNE THE 12TH AT 9:45, DID YOU GO INTO O.J.'S SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE TO SEE WHERE HE WAS, WHAT WOULD YOUR ANSWER BE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IF I WENT TO THE RESIDENCE?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YEAH.

A: I DIDN'T GO IN. I -- SO, NO, I WOULDN'T ASK HIM TO GO IN THERE. I --

Q: AND THAT WOULD NEVER BE ANYTHING YOU WOULD DO AT A SPECIFIC TIME, TO GO CHECK UP ON HIM AND SEE WHERE HE WAS; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: THAT IS TRUE.

Q: AND SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS IN THAT HOUSE, DO YOU?

A: I DON'T.

Q: FOR ALL YOU KNOW, THE LAST TIME YOU SAW HIM, HE WAS WALKING TOWARDS THE HOUSE?

A: RIGHT. HE WAS IN THE -- DIRECTION --

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY EVIDENCE OF HIM LEAVING THE HOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: SO THE LAST TIME YOU SAW HIM, IT WAS YOUR STATE OF MIND THAT HE PROBABLY WAS IN THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ANSWER IS STRICKEN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT 9:50, DID YOU GO TO CHECK ON O.J. SIMPSON'S WHEREABOUTS IN HIS HOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: AT 9:55, DID YOU GO CHECK?

A: NO.

Q: AT 10:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU CHECK?

A: NO.

Q: AT 10:15, DID YOU CHECK?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD YOU EVER DURING THAT DAY CHECK AS TO WHERE O.J. SIMPSON WAS?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD YOU EVER ON ANY DAY DURING THE SIX MONTHS YOU LIVED THERE CHECK AS TO WHERE O.J. SIMPSON WAS?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM THE VERY NEXT DAY WHEN HE CAME BACK AFTER THE MURDERS OF HIS EX-WIFE AND RONALD GOLDMAN, HE SENSED SOME RELIEF THAT AT LEAST HE KNEW THAT YOU HAD BEEN WITH HIM THAT DAY.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE NOT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE APPEAR RELIEVED WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT BEING WITH HIM THE DAY BEFORE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHEN O.J. SIMPSON SAID TO YOU, "THANK GOD I WAS WITH YOU," THAT HE SEEMED TO BE RELIEVED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT DID -- HOW DID O.J. SIMPSON APPEAR TO YOU WHEN HE MADE STATEMENTS TO YOU THE NEXT DAY AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: HE WAS TALKING DOWN LIKE THAT (INDICATING). UH, WE DIDN'T TALK A LOT. HE JUST WAS KIND OF OH, GOSH TYPE OF, UH, ATTITUDE, KIND OF -- HE HAD A -- DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING UP HOW THEY --

Q: YES.

A: -- HOW THAT STATEMENT CAME UP?

Q: YES. HOW DID IT COME UP?

A: IT WAS TALKING BACK TO A T.V. THE -- THE T.V. ANNOUNCER HAD SAID SOMETHING AND HE HAD JUST SAID THAT, UH, HE -- AT THAT TIME, I WAS WITH HIM AND HE SAID, "KATO WAS -- KATO KNEW THAT WE WERE TOGETHER," AND I JUST -- I SAID NO, I DIDN'T SEE HIM IN THE HOUSE AND THAT WAS IT.

Q: HE DIDN'T TRY TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, DID HE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, BECAUSE I SAID I DIDN'T SEE HIM IN THE HOUSE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS HE EVER ASKED YOU TO CREATE AN ALIBI FOR HIM OR LIE FOR HIM?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS ANYBODY EVER ASKED THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION? STAND, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND THAT WHEN YOU SAW O.J. SIMPSON AT 9:45, HE WAS NOT ACTING IN ANY UNUSUAL MANNER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE, DATE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: AND OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT 9:45, SIR, IS THERE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE WITNESS NEVER SAW HIM AT 9:45.

THE COURT: HE CAN ASK THE QUESTION, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AFTER YOU RETURNED FROM MC DONALD'S --

A: YES.

Q: -- IN THE EARLY -- IN THE MID EVENING OF JUNE THE 12TH, IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS NOT ACTING IN ANY UNUSUAL MANNER?

A: HE WAS NOT ACTING UNUSUAL, NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM AGAIN AT 10:00 O'CLOCK -- AT 11:00 O'CLOCK LEAVING FOR THE AIRPORT, OTHER THAN BEING RUSHED, IS THERE ANY QUESTION THAT HE WAS NOT ACTING IN ANY UNUSUAL MANNER?

A: HE WAS RUSHED TO CATCH A FLIGHT. SO IF THAT'S UNUSUAL, THAT -- AND OUR CONTACT WAS BRIEF. SO BEING RUSHED, THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY, YES.

Q: NOTHING THAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AS SHOWING HIM TO BE -- IN ANY WAY, ACTING ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE O.J. SIMPSON YOU HAD COME TO KNOW FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF?

A: NO. NO, NOT DIFFERENT.

Q: AND HAVE YOU DONE YOUR BEST TO BE AS TRUTHFUL AS YOU CAN WITH THIS JURY OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID THAT IS A LIE TO THIS JURY?

A: NO. EVERYTHING I DID TO THE BEST OF MY -- MY MEMORY AND THAT'S IT. EVERYTHING WAS WHAT I REMEMBER AND TRUTHFUL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES REGARDING ANOTHER AREA THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT GET INTO, AND I AM NOT PREPARED TO PROCEED ON THAT AREA UNTIL I CONFER WITH THEM.

THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO CONFER?

MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION TOMORROW, KNOWING THAT THE COURT HAD SCHEDULED THIS TO END AT NOON. WE'VE GONE A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THAT.

THE COURT: I WAS HOPING WE WOULD FINISH THIS MORNING WITH MR. KAELIN.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS MAY BE THE END. I MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING MORE.

THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO CONFER WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES?

MR. SHAPIRO: WE ARE GOING TO NEED SOME TIME. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO QUICKLY AND DECIDE.

THE COURT: ANY COMMENT BY THE PEOPLE?

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT THE COURT HAS TO AT SOME POINT CUT THIS OFF. NOW, THE WITNESS CAN BE RECALLED BY THE DEFENSE. THE WITNESS ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE. WE CAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION FOR NOW, MOVE ON WITH THIS CASE AND COUNSEL CAN RECALL THE WITNESS IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. HE'S THEIR WITNESS REALLY ANYWAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T CALL THIS WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: NO, I KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE ALREADY GONE 15 MINUTES PAST WHEN I SAID WE WERE GOING TO STOP TODAY. WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE ON THIS OTHER AREA OR DO YOU KNOW AT THIS POINT?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN NOT GIVE A GOOD FAITH REPRESENTATION AS TO THE TIME. I THINK THE DIRECT WOULD BE VERY BRIEF. I THINK THE CROSS WOULD BE QUITE LENGTHY.

MS. CLARK: I KNOW MR. SHAPIRO HAS NEVER PROBABLY GIVEN A GOOD FAITH REPRESENTATION.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE REALLY DON'T NEED THOSE KIND OF SNIDE REMARKS, PLEASE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, I AM PERSONALLY --

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE AREA COUNSEL INTENDS TO GO INTO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED BY THIS CONDUCT OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS. YOUR HONOR PUT DOWN CERTAIN RULES, PUT THEM IN WRITING, HAS GIVEN WARNING AFTER WARNING, AND WE WOULD ASK YOUR HONOR TO START ENFORCING THOSE RULES WITH APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS.

MS. CLARK: GOOD. PERHAPS --

MR. SHAPIRO: I FIND IT PERSONALLY EMBARRASSING AND HUMILIATING. COUNSEL KNOWS THAT THESE SIDEBARS ARE REPORTED, AND I DON'T WANT TO DIGNIFY HER RESPONSES AT ALL, BUT I THINK THE COURT SHOULD MAKE APPROPRIATE COMMENTS.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD WELCOME THE COURT'S IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES AS APPROPRIATE. MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN OFFENSIVE IN HIS CONDUCT TOWARDS ME, RUDE, MAKING UNCALLED FOR, DEROGATORY REMARKS SINCE JUNE THE 13TH, AND THIS COURT IS ONLY AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS COURT SINCE COMING TO SUPERIOR COURT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF WATER UNDER THIS BRIDGE. I WOULD JUST LET THE COURT KNOW COUNSEL HAS GIVEN A GREAT DEAL, GREATER THAN HE'S RECEIVED IN THIS RESPECT.

THE COURT: WELL, THE FACT THAT THAT MAY BE HISTORY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S TRUE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE OUR BREAK THEN AT THIS POINT SINCE WE'RE ALREADY OVER IN ANY EVENT AND THE SHERIFF NEEDS TO GET THIS JUROR ON HER WAY TO THE FUNERAL THAT SHE NEEDS TO ATTEND. SO WE'LL TAKE THE BREAK AT THIS TIME.

TOMORROW MORNING SHARP WITH THE JURY. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO CONCLUDE THE OTHER JUROR MATTERS, ANY OTHER DISCOVERY MATTERS. SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO RECONVENE AT 1:30 OR 1:45 WITH COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THAT, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: YOU MEAN TODAY?

THE COURT: TODAY.

MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK THAT THE -- THAT COUNSEL MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE AREA THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING INTO? I MEAN THIS MAY BE AN AREA WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO AND THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION, IN WHICH CASE WE CAN CONCLUDE WITH THE WITNESS NOW.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO COUNSEL.

THE COURT: HE'S ASKING FOR TIME TO CONFER. I WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME CONSIDERATION, AS I HAVE.

MS. CLARK: YOU HAVE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WASN'T CLEAR. ARE WE COMING BACK 1:45 TODAY?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT MATTER ARE WE GOING TO --

(PAGES 20401 THROUGH 20402, VOLUME 114A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAD GONE A LITTLE OVER THE NOON HOUR. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE A BREAK FOR PERSONAL REASONS TODAY AT NOON. AND I HAD HOPED TO FINISH WITH MR. KAELIN THIS MORNING. APPARENTLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO FINISH. SO WE'RE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. ONE OF OUR MEMBERS HAS TO ATTEND A FUNERAL. AND YOU HAVE OUR CONDOLENCES. AND WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. MR. KAELIN, YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS.

(AT 12:20 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1995
VOLUME 114

PAGES 20247 THROUGH 20403, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 20276 THROUGH 20282, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
(PAGES 20401 THROUGH 20402, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
(PAGES 20404 THROUGH 20409, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 114 PAGES 20247 - 20403

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

MONDAY MARCH 23, 1995 A.M. 20247 114

-----------------------------------------------------

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N

-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

KAELIN, BRIAN 114 KATO
(RESUMED) 20264MC
(RESUMED) 20317MC 20379S

-----------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE'S (402)
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

KAELIN, BRIAN 114 KATO 20299MC 20307S 20310MC

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

144 - 4-PAGE STATEMENT 20370 114
BRIAN KATO KAELIN

145 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20371 114
A CLOSE-UP OF THE DEFENDANT'S HAND