MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (State Bar No. 97802)
EDWARD M. MEDVENE (State Bar No. 322270
THOMAS P. LAMBERT (State Bar No. 50952)
PETER B. GELBLUM (State Bar No. 102695)
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
(310) 312-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FREDRIC GOLDMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant.
Case No. SC 031947
Consolidated With
Case No. SC 036340
And
Case No. SC 036876
MOTION IN LIMINE OF PLAINTIFF FREDRIC GOLDMAN TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING MARK FUHRMAN'S CLAIM OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
Trial Date: September 17, 1996
GOLDMAN MOTION NO. 13
Plaintiff Fredric Goldman anticipates that defendant Orenthal James Simpson may attempt to introduce evidence or argument at the trial of this action relating to former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during his deposition in this case and during Simpson's criminal trial. This Court should exclude any such evidence and argument.
The Evidence Code is directly on point. It mandates that:
"If . . . on a prior occasion a privilege . . . was exercised not to testify with respect to any matter . . ., neither the presiding officer nor counsel may comment thereon, no presumption shall arise because of the exercise of the privilege, and the trier of fact may not draw any inference therefrom as to the credibility of the witness or as to any matter at issue in the proceeding."
Cal. Evid. Code 913(a); People v. Frierson, 53 Cal. 3d 730, 743 (1991) ("No inference may properly be drawn from the invocation of a privilege."); see also Buchler v. Sbardellati, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1527, 154142 (1995) (prohibiting argument regarding the assertion of a privilege by a witness during discovery).
Thus, allowing Simpson to present evidence and argument regarding Fuhrman's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege "would only invite the jury to make an improper inference." Frierson, 53 Cal. 3d at 743. Simpson has no "right to present to the jury [such] a speculative, factually unfounded inference." People v. Mincey, 2 Cal. 4th 408, 442 (1992) (noting that inferences drawn "from the mere exercise of the privilege would be improper and [are] at best based on speculation, not evidence").
Accordingly, Goldman respectfully requests that the Court issue an order ~in limine prohibiting Simpson from presenting evidence or argument at the trial of this action regarding Detective Fuhrman's prior invocations of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Dated: August 26,1996
MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
Daniel M. Petrocelli
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fredric Goldman