JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
330 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
(212) 682-1700
EDWARD J. HOROWITZ, ESQ.
STATE BAR NO. 39688
11661 SAN VICENTE BLVD., # 1015
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-5118
(310) 826-6619
NATASHA ROIT, ESQ.
STATE BAR # 125216
LAW OFFICES OF NATASHA ROIT
116 N. ROBERTSON BLVD., # 705
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048
(310) 657-7871
PAUL CALLAN, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY
ONE WHITEHALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 90048
(212) 248-8800
Attorneys for LOUIS H. BROWN,|
Executor and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO, et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al
Defendant(s).
CASE NO.: SC 031947; C/W
CASE NO.: SC 036340; C/W
CASE NO.: SC 036876
MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO ALLEGATIONS OF BROWN FAMILY SALE OF ITEMS, STORIES, EXAMINATION DURING TRIAL
Trial Date: 09/17/96
Motion Cutoff: 08/26/96
The plaintiff, Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, respectfully moves to exclude certain evidence which the plaintiff believes defendant Simpson will offer at the time of trial. The evidence in question is irrelevant, non probative, misleading and inflammatory.
The court should issue an order in limine to instruct defendant's attorney and witnesses as follows:
Defendant's attorney and witnesses are directed not to introduce, suggest, refer to, or comment on, either directly or indirectly, during voir dire, or before the jury regarding the allegation that any member of the Brown family including Louis Brown, Juditha Brown, Denise Brown, Dominique Brown, Tanya Brown and Rolph Bauer sold or profited from the sale of any items, stories or materials related to Nicole Brown Simpson, Orenthal Simpson, or their children, Sydney and Justin.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Based upon certain questions propounded by defense counsel at the deposition of certain Brown family members, the plaintiff, Estate- of Nicole Brown Simpson, has reason to believe that defendant Simpson will seek to introduce and utilize non- probative, misleading, inflammatory allegations and materials regarding various members of the Brown family.
At the deposition of Dominique Brown, the younger sister of the deceased Nicole Brown Simpson, defendant Simpson's counsel asked the following questions:
"Since your sister has been killed, have you received any income from the sale of photographs of Nicole . . ."
"Have you sold photographs of Nicole to anybody?"
Shortly after receiving answers to these questions, defendant's attorneys immediately contacted the national media and provided them detailed answers to same as an obvious attempt to slander and embarrass this witness. See Exhibit "A" hereto.
These questions strongly suggest that at the trial of this matter, defendant Simpson will seek to introduce and utilize material and questions tending to suggest that members of the Brown family have profited from the sale of various items and materials relating to Nicole Brown Simpson, defendant Simpson and the children, Sydney and Justin Simpson. It is impossible to anticipate the number or specific kind of questions which may be propounded by defense counsel under the guise of "impeachment" or "attack on witnesses' credibility." A wealth of inaccurate, slanderous and scurrilous material regarding the Brown family has appeared in the tabloid press and in other media outlets since the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Should any of this type of material be brought to the attention of the jury, the prejudicial impact on the plaintiff estate's case will be substantial. The prejudice will exist even if a scandalous question is followed by a denial from the witness.
In addition, the introduction of such scurrilous and collateral material will prolong the trial and distract the jury from the true issues at hand: the brutal murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by defendant Simpson. If the door to this type of testimony is opened, the plaintiff estate of Nicole Brown Simpson will be required to reply with evidence regarding the family's efforts to insure the financial welfare and security of the children, Sydney and Justin. The estate may also be forced to contest through evidence the accuracy of defendant Simpson's assertions.
II.
STATEMENT OF LAW
ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SALE OF ITEMS, STORIES AND MATERIALS PERTAINING TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, JUSTIN AND SYDNEY SIMPSON, FOR PROFIT BY MEMBERS OF THE BROWN FAMILY MUST BE EXCLUDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL AND DEFENSE COUNSEL MUST BE PROHIBITED FROM ANY REFERENCE TO SAID MATERIAL.
It is completely within the court's discretion to prevent the defense from arguing or introducing evidence regarding the alleged sale of the items, stories and materials noted above and to prevent defense counsel from inquiring into the alleged sale on cross-examination. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352: Kessler v. Gray 77 Cal.App.3d 284; People v. Hess, 104 Cal.App.2d 642, People v. Rodrigues, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235. In using its discretion, the trial court must balance the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of introducing that evidence. The court must also consider whether the evidence will confuse the issue or mislead the jury. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352. It is respectfully submitted that these "sale allegations", whether introduced directly or in cross-examination, fail every one of the determinative criteria regarding admissibility.
First, the allegation that the Brown's may have sold items, stories or materials to the media has absolutely nothing to do with the substantive issues of this lawsuit. In addition, the prejudicial impact of making this allegation in front of the jury would be severe and may compel the Browns to produce evidence to disprove irrelevant allegations, thus prolonging the trial.
This alleged evidence is entirely irrelevant to the assessment of witness credibility in this case. No members of the Brown family are individual plaintiffs in this litigation. The action has been brought by the Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson and the only beneficiaries of that estate are Nicole Brown Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin Simpson.
Cross-examination is properly limited to prevent undue prejudice and to avoid the unnecessary consumption of time. The Court of Appeal has ruled that limiting the cross-examination of a witness regarding her relationship with the victim is proper when the purpose of that cross-examination would be to challenge the witness' credibility. People v. Barrow, 60 Cal.App.3d. 984. In that case, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's finding that testimony showing that the relationship between the witness and the decedent victim was less than "beautiful" was collateral, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial. The case before this court presents a similar situation. Malicious allegations by the defense with absolutely no probative bearing on this case should not be allowed to impeach the testimony of the Brown Family.
Second, the introduction of this collateral material would lead the jury's attention away from the real facts at issue in this case rather than assist them in the search for the truth. At no time during this trial should the jury be called to pass judgment on the family of the slain plaintiff. The jury must not be led astray from the inquiry into whether the defendant Orenthal James Simpson is liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Finally, this trial will produce a tremendous amount of evidence for the jury to digest. For the defense to contribute additional evidence that has no bearing on the facts at issue would be unduly time consuming and wasteful of the court's limited time. As such, not only must the evidence be excluded on relevance grounds, but also on the grounds that it would unnecessarily prolong the trial.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
330 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
(212) 682-1700
EDWARD J. HOROWITZ, ESQ.
STATE BAR NO. 39688
11661 SAN VICENTE BLVD., # 1015
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-5118
(310) 826-6619
NATASHA ROIT, ESQ.
STATE BAR # 125216
LAW OFFICES OF NATASHA ROIT
116 N. ROBERTSON BLVD., # 705
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048
(310) 657-7871
PAUL CALLAN, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY
ONE WHITEHALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 90048
(212) 248-8800
Attorneys for LOUIS H. BROWN,
Executor and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO, et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs .
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al
Defendant(s).
CASE NO. SC 031947; C/W
CASE NO. SC 036340; C/W
CASE NO. SC 036876
MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO "GENEROSITY & BENEVOLENCE" OF ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON IN ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTING FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE BROWN FAMILY
Trial Date: 09/17/96
Motion Cutoff: 08/26/96
The plaintiff, Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, respectfully moves to exclude certain evidence which the plaintiff believes defendant Simpson will offer at the time of trial. The evidence in question is irrelevant, non probative, misleading and inflammatory.
The court should issue an order in limine to instruct defendant's attorney and witnesses as follows:
Defendant's attorney and witnesses are directed not to introduce, suggest, refer to, or comment on, either directly or indirectly, during voir dire, or before the jury regarding the allegation that defendant Simpson acted with generosity and benevolence in allegedly contributing financial support and assistance to member of the Brown family, including Louis Brown, Juditha Brown, Denise Brown, Dominique Brown, Tanya Brown and Rolph Bauer.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By this motion, the plaintiff Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson seeks to exclude argument or evidence relating to any financial support or assistance the defendant Orenthal James Simpson allegedly gave to the family of the decedent Nicole Brown Simpson in the years preceding Nicole Brown Simpson's brutal murder. Whether or not defendant Simpson rendered financial assistance to the family of his slain ex-wife is patently collateral and irrelevant to the issues of this trial. Any evidence of this nature must be excluded under Cal. Evid. Code. Sec. 352.
II.
ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER DIRECT OR INTRODUCED ON CROSS- EXAMINATION, REGARDING ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT O.J. SIMPSON GAVE TO THE BROWN FAMILY MUST BE EXCLUDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.
The plaintiff Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson anticipates that the defendant Simpson may attempt to argue or introduce evidence at trial showing his alleged financial support of the family of Nicole Brown Simpson. Questions pertaining to this subject area occurred at various depositions in this case. In addition, during Mr. Simpson's criminal trial repeated references to this subject area were made by counsel to defendant Simpson in both opening and closing statements, with no evidence presented to support same.
It is foreseeable that the defense may attempt to introduce this financial assistance evidence under the guise of impeaching the credibility of the Brown family members when they testify at trial.
In fact evidence tending to prove Mr. Simpson's alleged benevolence or generosity to Brown family members would have no "impeachment" value whatsoever. The contrary is true. If assertions regarding this "generosity" were true, family members would be motivated to support Mr. Simpson's claim of innocence in order to insure a continuity of financial support and benevolence.
The true reason that such evidence may be offered by Mr. Simpson's counsel is to improperly bolster Mr. Simpson's character and stature in the eyes of the jury.
The introduction of this subject area by the defendant Simpson will unnecessarily prolong the trial. The Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson will be forced to contest Mr. Simpson's claim of generosity and benevolence thereby creating a "trial within a trial" on this issue. This will generate confusion and draw the jury's attention away from the true issue at bar: the brutal murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
III.
STATEMENT OF LAW
It is completely within the court's discretion to prevent the defense from arguing or introducing evidence regarding the alleged generosity and benevolence of defendant Simpson in contributing financial support and assistance to members of the Brown family and to prevent defense counsel from inquiring into these matters on cross examination. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352; Kessler v. Gray, 77 Cal.App.3d 284; People v. Hess, 104 Cal.App.2d 642. People v. Rodrigues, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235. In using its discretion, the trial court must balance the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of introducing that evidence. The court must also consider whether the evidence will confuse the issue or mislead the jury. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352. It is respectfully submitted that these claims regarding defendant Simpson's alleged generosity and benevolence, whether argued or introduced directly or in cross examination, fail every one of the determinative criteria regarding admissibility.
The allegation that defendant Simpson was generous has nothing to do with the substantive issues of this lawsuit. In addition, introduction of this issue may have a prejudicial impact on the jury.
Accordingly, the court should also exclude all reference to the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation on the grounds that activities pertaining to the foundation are irrelevant and collateral to the issues presented in this litigation.
This alleged evidence is entirely irrelevant to the assessment of issues in this case. No members of the Brown family are individual plaintiffs in this litigation. The action has been brought by the Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson and the only beneficiaries of that estate are Nicole Brown Simpson's children, Sydney and Justin Simpson.
The introduction of this collateral material would lead the jury's attention away from the real facts at issue in this case rather than assist them in the search for the truth. At no time during this trial should the jury be called to pass judgment on the family of the slain plaintiff. The jury must not be led astray from the inquiry into whether the defendant Simpson is liable for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Finally, this trial will produce a tremendous amount of evidence for the jury to digest. For the defense to contribute additional argument or evidence that has no bearing on the facts at issue would be unduly time consuming and wasteful of the court's limited time. As such, not only must the evidence be excluded on relevance grounds, but also on the grounds that it would unnecessarily prolong the trial.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
330 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
(212) 682-1700
EDWARD J. HOROWITZ, ESQ.
STATE BAR NO. 39688
11661 SAN VICENTE BLVD., # 1015
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-5118
(310) 826-6619
NATASHA ROIT, ESQ.
STATE BAR # 125216
LAW OFFICES OF NATASHA ROIT
116 N. ROBERTSON BLVD., # 705
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048
(310) 657-7871
PAUL CALLAN, ESQ.
PRO HAC VICE
CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY
ONE WHITEHALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 90048
(212) 248-8800
Attorneys for LOUIS H. BROWN, Executor and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO, et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al
Defendant(s).
CASE NO.: SC 031947; C/W
CASE NO.: SC 036340; C/W
CASE NO.: SC 036876
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #3 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE BY DEFENDANT TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
Trial Date: 09/17/96
Motion Cutoff: 08/26/96
The plaintiff, Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, respectfully moves to exclude certain evidence which the plaintiff believes defendant Simpson will offer at the time of trial. The evidence in question is irrelevant, non probative, misleading and inflammatory.
The court should issue an order in limine to instruct defendant's attorney and witnesses as follows:
Defendant's attorney and witnesses are directed not to introduce, suggest, refer to, or comment on, either directly or indirectly, during voir dire, or before the jury regarding any subject matter pertaining to the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In the aftermath of the brutal slaying of Nicole Brown Simpson, the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation was formed to assist battered women throughout the United States. Certain members of the Brown family, including Louis Brown, Juditha Brown, Denise Brown, and Dominique Brown serve as officers of this charitable foundation.
During depositions and discovery proceedings in this case counsel to defendant Simpson have repeatedly directed questions and inquiries to members of the Brown family regarding this charitable foundation. These repeated attempts to obtain information regarding the Foundation suggests that defendant Simpson intends to improperly interject issues concerning the foundation into the trial of this matter.
The charitable foundation exists solely for the purpose of assisting battered women throughout the United States. No funds from the foundation have been used in connection with this lawsuit. As such, discussion of the foundation is irrelevant to the proceedings at bar. Issues pertaining to the foundation are entirely collateral. Should defendant raise such issues, plaintiff Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson would be compelled to offer evidence in rebuttal creating a "trial within a trial." This would unnecessarily prolong the trial of this case and distract the jury from the true issue at hand: the responsibility of defendant Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The court should therefore prohibit all reference by the defense to the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation.
II.
STATEMENT OF LAW
It is completely within the court's discretion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence regarding the alleged the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation and to prevent defense counsel from inquiring into matters pertaining to the Foundation on cross-examination. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352; Kessler v. Gray, 77 Cal.App.3d 284; People v. Hess, 104 Cal.App.2d 642, People v. Rodrigues, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235. In using its discretion, the trial court must balance the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of introducing that evidence. The court must also consider whether the evidence will confuse the issue or mislead the jury. Cal. Code of Evidence Sec. 352.
Accordingly, the court should exclude all reference to the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation on the grounds that activities pertaining to the foundation are irrelevant and collateral to the issues presented in this litigation.
Dated: August 26, 1996
/s/
John Quinlan Kelly,
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson