Your Honor, as I indicated before, I object to any special instruction. I object to paragraph 2 in its entirety, because I believe that that paragraph (indicating to document handed to them from the Court) is essentially putting the Court imprimatur on the plaintiffs' argument.

I object to paragraph 3 in its entirety for the same reason.

And I object to the first sentence of paragraph 4.

I object to the entire instruction, but those, I think, argue the case for the plaintiffs. And I think they're inappropriate to come from the bench.

I would object to the deletions suggested by Mr. Baker.

I think this balances it out and explains to the jury the purpose for which the evidence was offered. Otherwise, it looks like it's a rejection of the entire testimony.

Well, the Court heard argument yesterday for the admission of that evidence. That admission was received solely on the basis of state of mind of the decedent.

The Court reviewed the Ortiz case and was satisfied that if they allowed that in a criminal case, I think it's allowable in a civil case.

I'm satisfied that this instruction informs the jury of the limited purpose for which this evidence is being received, and that the Court has no belief as to the efficacy of the testimony.

That's a matter strictly for the jury, so I'll give it.

Judge, one other point.

What conduct -- what possible conduct of Nicole Brown Simpson could be relevant in this case?

The conduct with regards to her treatment, allegedly, of Mr. Simpson and at the recital and after the recital, and not inviting him to dinner, et cetera, to show her state of mind was not one of seeking reconciliation; that the defendant -- I believe defense evidence, defense examination of Mr. Simpson, tended to imply that there was -- that it was otherwise. And I believe that this evidence may be received when proffered by the plaintiff to counter that.