Under Section 352, in People versus Kaurish, I'm going to object because the defense is offering this guy purportedly to testify that he saw some people near Nicole's condominium around -- shortly before 9 o'clock p.m., and they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link these persons who were viewed, supposedly, by this witness to the perpetrator of this crime, they have no evidence linking these persons to anything that's relevant to this case.
So I don't -- I don't understand how his observations are at all relevant.
And the defense concedes that Nicole Brown Simpson was alive until sometime -- until after 10 o'clock p.m., in any event.
And this guy's observations were way before 9 o'clock p.m. because he was home by 9 o'clock.
MR. P. BAKER: We already addressed this point when we came over to sidebar during opening statements, when we discussed this situation about Tallarino in front of the jury.
He will testify that he sees a person with slicked back hair crouching in the bushes in front of her house at approximately 9 o'clock in the evening.
Detective Ball and Detective Ramirez interviewed him on July 7, 1994, about his recollections -- didn't ask him any more questions.
In April, Thomas Lange took him out to identify that location, 875 South Bundy. He said it was 875 South Bundy. They never heard from him again -- never heard from Detective Lange again.
This goes directly to what he observed in front of 875 South Bundy on the night in question. It's the exact same issue we discussed at sidebar during his opening statement.
KEY QUOTEForgive me, but he hasn't explained the relevance of this testimony.
He said that this guy made some observations, that he was interviewed twice by the police, and he still hasn't answered the question how these observations in any way, shape, or form, relate to this case.
MR. P. BAKER: He's the only eyewitness of suspicious activity outside 875 Bundy on the night they were killed. It's directly relevant.
There was a rush to judgment. It shows there was a judgment -- rush to identify O.J. Simpson, but they never followed up any leads.
That's the basis for your offering it, it's irrelevant.
MR. P. BAKER: It's relevant to show there was suspicious activity out in front of 875 South Bundy at 9 o'clock, within an hour to two hours of when she's killed.
Under People versus Kaurish, they have to link any other alleged perpetrator to the facts of this case. They have no such evidence.
MR. P. BAKER: People versus Kaurish does not say that.
I'll permit you to offer this evidence of a suspicious character. If you're going to argue rush to judgment based on that, I will not allow it.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to take it for five minutes, what he observed and how he was interviewed twice.
KEY QUOTEThey're really trying to use this witness on the rush to judgment point, Your Honor. That's really what he's said.
MR. P. BAKER: No, I have not.
I'm only offering this only for the purpose of showing that there is a suspicious character at around that time. I will not permit it for a rush to judgment argument.
Under Section 352, in People versus Kaurish, I'm going to object because the defense is offering this guy purportedly to testify that he saw some people near Nicole's condominium around -- shortly before 9 o'clock p.m., and they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link these persons who were viewed, supposedly, by this witness to the perpetrator of this crime
He's the only eyewitness of suspicious activity outside 875 Bundy on the night they were killed. It's directly relevant. There was a rush to judgment. It shows there was a judgment -- rush to identify O.J. Simpson, but they never followed up any leads.
I'll permit you to offer this evidence of a suspicious character. If you're going to argue rush to judgment based on that, I will not allow it.
People versus Kaurish does not say that.