Scheduling and jury instructions

📄 Scheduling and jury instructions — Thursday, December 5, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\5\SCHEDULING-AND-JURY-INSTRUCTIO.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 26 of 57

◀ Motion: reconsider Fuhrman testimony ruling Sidebar: Nancy Ney jury instruction ▶

Date: Thursday, December 5, 1996 • Lines: 6

Petrocelli discusses the remaining plaintiffs' schedule, expecting to rest after depositions and family testimony. Over Baker's objection, Judge Fujisaki instructs the jury that Ney's hotline account may be considered only for the caller's state of mind and conduct if the jury finds the caller was Nicole. It is not proof that the reported events occurred, or of Simpson's acts or state of mind; the court leaves the caller's identity and the account's weight to the jury.

# 1 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor for scheduling purposes, today, after Randy Petee concludes his testimony, we have three or four deposition passages to be read into the record, and then that's all we have for today. And some requests for admissions to be read to the jury.

Mr. Taft has been promised to me by the defense tomorrow morning. He hasn't been available all week. So we will resume tomorrow morning, with the Court's permission, with Bruce Weir, whose deposition is being taken this afternoon, Skip Taft, and then members of the victims' families.

# 2 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 3 MR. PETROCELLI:

Then we will be anticipating resting our case tomorrow.

KEY QUOTE

# 4 THE COURT:

All right.

The Court's going to instruct the jury with regards to Nancy Ney's testimony. I think as an oversight, yesterday, the Court should have informed the jury that her testimony was being received for the limited purpose that you offered it; that is, to show her state of mind, with regards to her state of mind as to Mr. Simpson, and also to explain her conduct with regards to what occurred at the recital prior to the death.

# 5 MR. BAKER:

We would object to that, Your Honor. I think that gives the Court imprimatur that it was, in fact, Nicole Brown Simpson, and that -- that the Court ought not do it.

I objected to that testimony before it ever came in, and we still do object. We object to any of the preinstructions as attempting to cure error.

# 6 THE COURT:

Overruled. The jury is entitled to be advised that the evidence is received for a limited purpose.

Bring the jury in.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Daniel Petrocelli

Then we will be anticipating resting our case tomorrow.

Signals the plaintiff's case is nearly complete, a major trial milestone.

Robert Baker

I think that gives the Court imprimatur that it was, in fact, Nicole Brown Simpson, and that -- that the Court ought not do it.

Baker argues the limiting instruction itself lends judicial credibility to the substance of Ney's testimony, not just its purpose.

Robert Baker

We object to any of the preinstructions as attempting to cure error.

Preserves the defense's standing objection to Ney's testimony for appeal.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Nancy Ney's testimony, admitted for the limited purpose of showing her state of mind regarding Simpson and explaining her conduct at the recital prior to the murders

discussed — subject of limiting instruction

Informal

Deposition of Bruce Weir (being taken that afternoon)

scheduled for reading into the record

Informal

Requests for admissions

scheduled to be read to the jury

Notable Exchanges (1)

Hiroshi Fujisaki•Robert Baker

Baker objects to the court's limiting instruction for Ney's testimony on the grounds that issuing it retroactively implies judicial endorsement of the testimony's truth, and frames all such cure instructions as improper. Fujisaki overrules.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8493 • 6 lines

Civil Trial

Department 103