Re-redirect examination of Albert Aguilera

📄 Re-redirect examination of Albert Aguilera — Tuesday, December 3, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\3\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ALB.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 24 of 57

◀ Sidebar: testimony reopening Witness step-down: Charles Cale called ▶

Witness: Albert Aguilera
Examiner: John Kelly
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 • Utterances: 33

Robert Baker recrossed Albert Aguilera on whether he or his ex-wife gave an interview to the tabloid 'The Globe' about the incident Aguilera claims to have witnessed involving OJ and Nicole. Aguilera denied ever speaking to The Globe or even discussing the incident with his ex-wife. Baker also attempted — and was blocked twice — to challenge Aguilera's claim of hearing Nicole and OJ communicate from 30 yards out in the ocean with waves crashing.

# 1 Q:

Were you interviewed by "The Globe," Mr. Anguilera?

# 2 A:

No, I was not.

# 3 Q:

Your ex-wife reported this whole incident that you say occurred to "The Globe," correct?

# 4 MR. KELLY:

Objection, hearsay.

# 5 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 6 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You were aware, because you were subsequently contacted after this appeared in "The Globe" by the LAPD or LA D.A.'s office, that your wife had put your purported rendition of this event in "The Globe," correct?

# 7 MR. KELLY:

Same objection.

# 8 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 9 MR. BAKER:

On what grounds, sir.

# 10 THE COURT:

It's hearsay.

# 11 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever read this article -- any article in "The Globe" relating to this purported event?

# 12 MR. KELLY:

Objection.

# 13 THE COURT:

You can answer yes or no.

# 14 A:

Yes.

# 15 Q:

Did you read the portion that is attributed to you in the article?

# 16 A:

Yes.

# 17 Q:

And is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that you never had any interview with "The Globe" whatsoever?

# 18 A:

I never even talked to my ex-wife about this incident.

KEY QUOTE

# 19 Q:

I didn't ask you if you talked to your wife about it. I asked you if you, in fact, talked to "The Globe" about it.

KEY QUOTE

# 20 MR. KELLY:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 21 THE COURT:

Overruled.

You may answer.

# 22 A:

No, I did not.

# 23 Q:

And so the -- what is it attributed to the -- to you in "The Globe," you never said that either?

# 24 A:

That's correct.

# 25 Q:

Now, did you -- did you indicate to the police that you could hear Nicole talking from 90 to 120 feet away to -- to Mr. Simpson?

# 26 MR. KELLY:

Objection, improper recross.

# 27 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 28 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you, at any time, indicate to anyone, that you could hear Nicole Brown Simpson communicating with O.J. Simpson when you were 30 yards out in the water, waves crashing, and Mr. and Mrs. Simpson were up on the beach?

# 29 MR. KELLY:

Same objection.

# 30 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 31 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) So all of these comments that you made to the investigators in the LA D.A.'s office, indicating that when you purportedly saw this incident, being the 3rd or 4th of July, are absolutely incorrect, and you have no explanation, whatsoever, how they could have mixed up the 1st of July for the 3rd or 4th?

KEY QUOTE

# 32 A:

That's correct.

# 33 MR. KELLY:

Same objection, argumentative and compound.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Albert Aguilera

I never even talked to my ex-wife about this incident.

Aguilera deflects Baker's question about The Globe interview by volunteering he didn't even discuss it with his ex-wife — a non-answer Baker immediately calls out.

Robert Baker

I didn't ask you if you talked to your wife about it. I asked you if you, in fact, talked to 'The Globe' about it.

Baker catches Aguilera dodging the question and forces a direct answer — a small but pointed impeachment moment.

Robert Baker

So all of these comments that you made to the investigators in the LA D.A.'s office, indicating that when you purportedly saw this incident, being the 3rd or 4th of July, are absolutely incorrect, and you have no explanation, whatsoever, how they could have mixed up the 1st of July for the 3rd or 4th?

Baker's closing argumentative question highlights a date discrepancy in Aguilera's account — the compound/argumentative objection lands but the damage is done.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Article in 'The Globe' tabloid containing statements attributed to Aguilera about the incident

discussed — Aguilera admits reading it but denies giving the interview

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Baker•Albert Aguilera

Baker catches Aguilera answering a different question than asked — Aguilera says he never talked to his ex-wife about the incident when Baker asked whether he talked to The Globe — forcing Baker to redirect him to the actual question.

strategic

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker challenges a sustained hearsay ruling mid-examination ('On what grounds, sir'), and Fujisaki simply reaffirms 'It's hearsay.' Baker gets no ground.

tense

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Albert Aguilera

prior inconsistent statement / third-party account

Baker implies Aguilera's ex-wife sold his account to The Globe, suggesting the story was fabricated or embellished; Aguilera denies even discussing the incident with her.

⚔ Albert Aguilera

physical implausibility

Baker attempted twice (both sustained as improper recross) to challenge whether Aguilera could realistically have heard Nicole and OJ communicating from 30 yards away in the ocean with waves crashing.

⚔ Albert Aguilera

date discrepancy

Baker challenged whether the incident occurred on July 1st (as Aguilera testified) vs. July 3rd or 4th (as recorded in DA investigator notes), with Aguilera offering no explanation for the discrepancy.

Objections

7 objections (5 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8430 • 33 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103