📄 Re-redirect examination of Charles Cale — Tuesday, December 3, 1996
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\3\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-CHA.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 24 of 57

Re-redirect examination of Charles Cale

Witness: Charles Cale
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 • Utterances: 57
Baker's recross attempts to establish that the witness — apparently a lawyer — knew the Bronco was significant to the Simpson case as early as July 1994 yet didn't speak to police until January 1995. Judge Fujisaki sustained nearly every question as outside the scope, overbroad, or asked-and-answered, and Baker was unable to land a single substantive question on this line.
1 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you go on Ashford at all that night?

2 A:

No, sir.

3 Q:

Did you go look down Ashford to see Mr. -- whether Mr. Kaelin's Datsun was there?

4 A:

No, sir.

5 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

6 Q:

Did you see any cars, sir, on Rockingham at all on June 12, 1994?

7 A:

I thought I indicated earlier that I --

8 THE COURT:

This is during that time period?

9 MR. BAKER:

No. At all during --

10 THE COURT:

There is 24 hours in a day, Mr. Baker.

KEY QUOTE
11 MR. BAKER:

I'm sorry.

12 THE COURT:

There's 24 hours in a day.

13 MR. BAKER:

I understand that.

14 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Let me put it this way, did you observe any vehicles the afternoon of the 12th?

15 MR. GELBLUM:

Outside the scope.

16 THE COURT:

Sustained. That is irrelevant.

You may inquire, if your question is as to the specific time period. That's relevant. You may inquire.

17 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you know in June of 1994, after Fuhrman's testimony to the grand jury hearing, that the issue --

18 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection.

19 MR. PETROCELLI:

Objection.

20 THE COURT:

Sustained.

21 MR. BAKER:

How do we know what the question is?

22 THE COURT:

Because it's -- I will sustain the objection.

23 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You were aware in June of 1994, that the Bronco was an issue relative to the accusations that O.J. Simpson murdered two people on June 12, 1994, correct?

24 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, outside the scope of redirect.

25 THE COURT:

Overruled.

26 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You may answer that.

27 A:

No, I was not.

28 Q:

And at no time, from June of 1994 to January of 1995, did you become aware that the Bronco was an issue relative to the innocence or guilt of Mr. Simpson in the murders of June 12, 1994?

29 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, overbroad, irrelevant.

30 THE COURT:

Sustained.

31 MR. GELBLUM:

Whether the Bronco was an issue, that's a broad statement.

32 THE COURT:

Sustained.

33 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Let me it put it this way, did you know the Bronco was an element of the case?

34 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Same objection.

During what time period?

35 MR. BAKER:

Let's say July of 1994.

36 MR. GELBLUM:

We're talking about where the Bronco was parked. Overbroad.

37 THE COURT:

Sustained.

38 MR. BAKER:

I'd like to read from the criminal trial testimony, 21201, lines 2 through 7.

39 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. It's the same question you just sustained an objection to.

40 MR. BAKER:

Objection wasn't made at the criminal trial.

41 MR. GELBLUM:

Same questions.

42 MR. PETROCELLI:

Lack of foundation.

43 THE COURT:

You may ask a question.

44 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You knew as early as July of 1994, that the Bronco was at least an issue in the case, did you not?

45 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection.

46 THE COURT:

I'll sustain that.

47 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You knew as early as July of 1994 that the Bronco was at least an issue in the criminal case, being a lawyer, did you not?

48 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Same objection.

49 THE COURT:

Sustained.

50 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You knew it was an element in the case in July of 1994 and never talked to the police until January of 1995?

51 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection, compound.

52 THE COURT:

The question was asked and answered by this witness on the first cross-examination.

Sustained.

KEY QUOTE
53 MR. BAKER:

Nothing further.

54 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing further.

55 THE COURT:

You are excused.

56 CHARLES CALE:

Thank you.

57 THE COURT:

1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.

(At 12:01 P.M., a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day).

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996 1:51 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki
There is 24 hours in a day, Mr. Baker.
Testy judicial rebuke when Baker asked an overbroad question about cars on Rockingham 'at all' — Fujisaki wanted him confined to the relevant time window.
Witness
No, I was not.
Witness denies knowing the Bronco was an issue relative to the accusations against Simpson in June 1994 — the factual core Baker was trying to undermine.
Hiroshi Fujisaki
The question was asked and answered by this witness on the first cross-examination. Sustained.
Final ruling that shut down Baker's entire recross line, effectively ending the examination.

Evidence (1)

Informal
Criminal trial testimony, page 21201, lines 2-7 — Baker attempted to read from it to impeach but was blocked
attempted introduction, blocked by objection

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert BakerHiroshi Fujisaki
Baker asked whether any cars were seen on Rockingham 'at all' on June 12; Fujisaki cut him off twice with 'There are 24 hours in a day, Mr. Baker,' forcing Baker to narrow the time period.
testy
Robert BakerPeter GelblumHiroshi Fujisaki
Baker tried five successive phrasings of the same question — whether the witness knew the Bronco was relevant to the case in mid-1994 — and was sustained on every attempt, including one where Fujisaki preemptively sustained before Baker finished the question.
frustrated

Light Moments (1)

Hiroshi Fujisaki
Fujisaki's repeated 'There are 24 hours in a day, Mr. Baker' drew implicit contrast between Baker's sloppy question and the court's expectations.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ unidentified witness
prior inconsistent statement / delay in coming forward
Baker attempted to establish that the witness, as a lawyer, knew the Bronco was central to the case by July 1994 but did not contact police until January 1995 — implying the delay was suspicious or strategically motivated. All such questions were sustained.

Objections

10 objections (9 sustained, 1 overruled)
Proceeding 8435 • 57 utterances • Plaintiff witness
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 DEC 3, 1996 📄 Re-redirect examination of Cha
DEC 3, 1996 KRT DvH TD