📄 Jury instruction: Nancy Ney testimony — Thursday, December 5, 1996
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\5\JURY-INSTRUCTION-NANCY-NEY-TES.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 26 of 57

Jury instruction: Nancy Ney testimony

Date: Thursday, December 5, 1996 • Utterances: 5
Judge Fujisaki delivers a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the testimony of Nancy Ney, a counselor at Sojourn House (a domestic violence shelter), about a phone call she received from someone she believed to be Nicole Brown Simpson. The judge instructs the jury that the testimony may only be considered to show the caller's state of mind and to explain her conduct — not as evidence that any described events actually occurred, and not as evidence of any state of mind or acts attributable to O.J. Simpson.
1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)
2 THE COURT:

Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, you will recall the testimony of Nancy Ney, the woman from the Sojourn House, who testified about a telephone call.

The testimony of Nancy Ney of a telephone call from Nicole was received into evidence for the limited purpose -- for a limited purpose, and cannot be considered by the jury for any other purpose.

It has been contended variously that Nicole Brown Simpson was trying to get back together with Mr. Simpson; that she was fearful of him, or that did not want to reconcile with him; or that she had a state of mind that was one way or another at different times.

The testimony of Nancy Ney, of the Sojourn House, about the telephone call was offered by the plaintiff to show Nicole's state of mind regarding the relationship at the time the call was made, and to explain her conduct as it may relate to Mr. Simpson at the recital the night of her death.

This testimony is received only to show her state of mind, and to explain her conduct.

The jury must not consider the substance of her statement to Nancy as evidence of any event or whether such event occurred.

The testimony is not evidence of any state of mind, intent, or acts attributable to Mr. Simpson, and cannot be considered by the jury for such purpose.

By giving you this instruction, the Court is not implying that Nancy Ney's testimony proves that the caller, Nicole, was, in fact, Nicole Brown Simpson. That is a determination that is solely and exclusively for you to make, after weighing and considering all of the evidence.

Jurors, you understand what I just said to you?

3 JURORS:

Yes, sir.

4 THE COURT:

That the substance of the telephone conversation -- you cannot consider whether they were real, truthful, or anything. You may only consider the telephone conversation as it may show what the caller's state of mind was at that time or about that time.

Everybody understand that?

5 (Nod affirmatively.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki
The jury must not consider the substance of her statement to Nancy as evidence of any event or whether such event occurred.
The core limiting instruction — the jury may not use what Nicole allegedly said as proof that anything she described actually happened.
Hiroshi Fujisaki
The testimony is not evidence of any state of mind, intent, or acts attributable to Mr. Simpson, and cannot be considered by the jury for such purpose.
Explicitly blocks the jury from using the testimony to draw inferences about Simpson's behavior or intentions.
Hiroshi Fujisaki
By giving you this instruction, the Court is not implying that Nancy Ney's testimony proves that the caller, Nicole, was, in fact, Nicole Brown Simpson. That is a determination that is solely and exclusively for you to make.
The judge takes care not to endorse the identity of the caller, leaving it as a factual question for the jury.

Evidence (1)

Informal
Testimony of Nancy Ney regarding a phone call from someone identified as Nicole Brown Simpson, made to Sojourn House, concerning Nicole's state of mind about her relationship with O.J. Simpson
subject of limiting instruction

Notable Exchanges (1)

Hiroshi FujisakiJurors
After delivering the instruction, the judge twice checks comprehension — once verbally ('Jurors: Yes, sir.') and once with a physical confirmation (nod affirmatively).
methodical

Witness Demeanor

(Jurors nod affirmatively.)

Objections

None recorded
Proceeding 8495 • 5 utterances
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 DEC 5, 1996 📄 Jury instruction: Nancy Ney te
DEC 5, 1996 KRT DvH TD