Sidebar: Olson deposition objections

📄 Sidebar: Olson deposition objections — Wednesday, December 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\4\SIDEBAR-OLSON-DEPOSITION-OBJEC.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 25 of 57

◀ Jury returns; time-off confirmed Reading of Frank Olson deposition ▶

Date: Wednesday, December 4, 1996 • Utterances: 35

Petrocelli sought to admit pages 69-73 of Frank Olson's deposition, where Olson (Simpson's former agent/publicist) reacted to learning about Simpson's 1989 domestic violence incident and alleged stalking. Judge Fujisaki sustained the objection, ruling that Olson's personal reactions and state of mind were irrelevant — equivalent to 'putting Mr. Olson in the jury box.' Petrocelli reserved the right to revisit portions of the deposition in rebuttal depending on how the defense used Olson's demeanor testimony.

# 1 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, can we approach very briefly?

# 2 THE COURT:

Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?

# 3 MR. LEONARD:

Yes.

# 4 MR. PETROCELLI:

The last clip I have is 69 to the top of 73 to which he objects and it starts here and ends here. Maybe the best thing to do is take a quick look at it.

# 5 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, before you start reading, obviously, I object.

# 6 THE COURT:

You don't even want me to read it?

# 7 MR. LEONARD:

Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. You're the Judge. Go ahead.

# 8 THE COURT:

I'm just wondering why you don't want me to read it.

# 9 MR. LEONARD:

Dont want you to read it?

# 10 (Pause for the Court to read document.)

# 11 THE COURT:

To where?

# 12 MR. PETROCELLI:

To these next two pages.

# 13 MR. PETROCELLI:

And it ends with this last line right there.

# 14 (Referring to page 73.)

# 15 MR. PETROCELLI:

The relevance of all of this is to show that Mr. Simpson, who denies striking Nicole, lied to Frank Olson to protect his image and his financial interests, all of which we are proffering to impeach his testimony here on the witness stand, that he didn't hit her in 1989, and then he had motivation to lie.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 MR. LEONARD:

First of all, this is -- this is all going to Mr. Olson's state of mind, number one.

# 17 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 18 MR. LEONARD:

Go ahead.

# 19 THE COURT:

For the record, we are discussing pages 69 through line 1 of page 73 of the transcript of Mr. Olson's deposition.

# 20 MR. LEONARD:

Number one. It's going to Olson's state of mind. It has -- it's replete with references to Olson's feelings.

I was stunned. I was -- I didn't believe it.

I don't think he asked him anything about '89 in here; he asked him about whether he had heard of the '83 -- excuse me -- '93 incidents. There's no foundation that he had ever talked to Simpson about that.

There's also a section in here about the photographs. Now, they've shown -- how many times have they shown the photographs? They didn't even show Olson these photographs. They asked him, are you aware of some photographs, and then they're asking him his opinion about whether they were consistent with what Simpson had told him.

I think it's -- it's cumulative. What they've already proven, they've already gotten in through Olson, Simpson's version of the event. To the extent that contradicts what other people have said, it's there. They've already played that portion where Simpson said he shoved her. This is -- this is cumulative; it's prejudicial; it's -- it's basically Olson's reaction to this other event he has asked him about.

Were you aware that Simpson was excessive by following or stalking Nicole? Okay. There's no foundation that, first of all, that in this case, that that's occurred. Number two, that he ever discussed this with Olson, if there was ever an opportunity for Olson to discuss it. There's no foundation.

Finally, again, it's cumulative. It's prejudicial.

# 21 THE COURT:

You're repeating yourself.

# 22 MR. LEONARD:

A little cumulative.

KEY QUOTE

# 23 MR. KELLY:

You're cumulative.

# 24 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor, the other part I neglected to mention -- Mr. Leonard reminded me -- this also goes to show that Simpson is capable of acting in a certain way, and at the same time, withhold and hide information from people.

And this goes to the demeanor case. And maybe some of this is probably the more appropriate response of their demeanor evidence.

They're going to put on the fact that he signed autographs and he's acting normal before and after the murders, indicating that he couldn't have possibly committed the murders; he's a guy who worked for him 20 years, who cultivated his image, to say I never saw this side of O.J. Simpson, to prove that there is another side to Simpson that he doesn't show others; that he's perfectly capable of acting in this normal, outgoing, gregarious personality, even when he's under the utmost stress.

# 25 THE COURT:

I'll sustain the objection. I don't think Mr. Olson's state of mind is relevant.

# 26 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can I have that without prejudice, if they get into this area in their case?

# 27 MR. LEONARD:

No.

# 28 MR. PETROCELLI:

I'm able to ask, Your Honor, to place some of this testimony on our rebuttal case depending on what they do with demeanor.

# 29 THE COURT:

The reason I am sustaining the objection is because I don't think Mr. Olson's reaction -- and that's all it is, is Mr. Olson's reaction -- that you've evoked in your examination to Mr. Simpson's conduct, I don't think they're relevant. That's like putting Mr. Olson in the jury box. That's --

# 30 MR. PETROCELLI:

What about the part, like, where he said, like, in 17 years, never ever seen the guy lose his temper?

# 31 MR. LEONARD:

I'll agree to that part only.

# 32 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can I reserve some of this for rebuttal? That's all I'm asking, to revisit it with Your Honor. I won't get into his state-of-mind issues, though, okay.

# 33 MR. LEONARD:

We're going to --

# 34 THE COURT:

The defense case -- you may make an offer and I'll make a ruling.

# 35 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Daniel Petrocelli

The relevance of all of this is to show that Mr. Simpson, who denies striking Nicole, lied to Frank Olson to protect his image and his financial interests, all of which we are proffering to impeach his testimony here on the witness stand.

Articulates the plaintiff's core theory: Simpson lied to his own publicist about domestic violence to preserve his image, which impeaches his denials on the stand.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

That's like putting Mr. Olson in the jury box. That's --

Fujisaki's pithy rationale for sustaining — Olson's emotional reaction to Simpson's conduct is not probative; it's just a surrogate juror's verdict.

Daniel Petrocelli

They're going to put on the fact that he signed autographs and he's acting normal before and after the murders, indicating that he couldn't have possibly committed the murders; he's a guy who worked for him 20 years, who cultivated his image, to say I never saw this side of O.J. Simpson.

Reveals plaintiff's strategic anticipation of the defense demeanor case — Olson as a witness to Simpson's public facade would directly rebut defense claims of normalcy.

Dan Leonard

A little cumulative.

Self-aware moment after Fujisaki pointed out Leonard was repeating himself — he essentially agreed with the judge's criticism mid-objection.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Pages 69 through line 1 of page 73 of Frank Olson's deposition transcript

discussed, objected to, excluded

Informal

Photographs shown to Olson (implied to be Nicole Brown Simpson injury photos) — Olson asked if they were consistent with what Simpson told him

referenced as lacking foundation in deposition questioning

Notable Exchanges (3)

Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Leonard began objecting before Fujisaki had even read the deposition pages, prompting the judge to ask why he didn't want the court to read it.

lightly comic

Dan Leonard•John Kelly

After Fujisaki noted Leonard was repeating himself, both Leonard and Kelly quipped that he was being 'cumulative' — turning the objection word back on him.

light

Daniel Petrocelli•Dan Leonard

Leonard agreed to admit the narrow portion where Olson said he'd never seen Simpson lose his temper in 17 years, distinguishing it from the excluded state-of-mind reactions.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Dan Leonard

Leonard objected before Fujisaki even read the document; Fujisaki asked why he didn't want it read; Leonard backpedaled immediately: 'You're the Judge. Go ahead.'

Dan Leonard / John Kelly

After Fujisaki told Leonard he was repeating himself, Leonard agreed: 'A little cumulative.' Kelly piled on: 'You're cumulative.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ O.J. Simpson

prior inconsistent statement / bias

Petrocelli sought to use Olson's deposition to show Simpson lied to his own publicist about the 1989 domestic violence incident to protect his image and financial interests, impeaching Simpson's trial testimony that he did not hit Nicole.

Witness Demeanor

(Pause for the Court to read document.)

(Referring to page 73.)

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8466 • 35 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103