Sidebar: scope of questioning

📄 Sidebar: scope of questioning — Friday, December 6, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\6\SIDEBAR-SCOPE-OF-QUESTIONING.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 27 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Sharon Rufo (part 2) Direct examination of Juditha Brown (part 1) ▶

Date: Friday, December 6, 1996 • Utterances: 16

Before calling Juditha Brown (Nicole's mother) to testify, plaintiff's attorney Kelly approached the bench to limit the scope of cross-examination. Kelly objected to Baker asking about Brown's participation in a sealed child custody proceeding in Orange County. Fujisaki ruled Baker could ask whether she was involved in such a proceeding, but not get into the substance.

# 1 MR. KELLY:

Your Honor, could we approach briefly before we call the next witness?

# 2 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 3 MR. KELLY:

Yeah.

(The following proceedings were

held at the bench:)

# 4 MR. KELLY:

Your Honor, the next witness is Juditha Brown, Nicole's mother. I'm just putting her on briefly for a very limited purpose to -- at the very end Mr. Baker indicated that he intended to ask questions about her testimony and or participation at the child custody proceeding down in Orange County.

I would object to any questions being asked regarding that at this time. I think it's irrelevant. I'm offering her for very limited scope, and that proceeding is finished down there except for summations. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to get into it at all, Your Honor, plus it's a sealed proceeding.

# 5 MR. BAKER:

Well, the fact that she's doing it goes to her bias. The fact that she is suing my client.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 THE COURT:

You may ask her if they're involved in a proceeding.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. BAKER:

I'm not going to get into the substance.

# 8 THE COURT:

That's what I don't want.

# 9 MR. BAKER:

No.

# 10 MR. KELLY:

Just a yes or no.

# 11 THE COURT:

Within reason.

# 12 MR. BAKER:

Thank you.

# 13 MR. KELLY:

Oh, his and mine is entirely different.

# 14 THE COURT:

Well, there's a thing you can do.

# 15 MR. KELLY:

Okay.

# 16 THE COURT:

The thing is to object and approach the bench:

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

John Kelly

that proceeding is finished down there except for summations. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to get into it at all, Your Honor, plus it's a sealed proceeding.

Kelly argues the custody proceeding is both irrelevant and protected as a sealed matter.

Robert Baker

The fact that she's doing it goes to her bias. The fact that she is suing my client.

Baker's rationale for inquiry: Brown's involvement in litigation against Simpson establishes her bias as a witness.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

You may ask her if they're involved in a proceeding.

The ruling — Baker gets a narrow door, not the full substance.

Notable Exchanges (1)

John Kelly•Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Kelly sought to block any questions about the Orange County custody proceeding on grounds of irrelevance and sealed status; Baker countered it goes to witness bias; Fujisaki split the difference allowing only a yes/no on involvement.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

John Kelly

Kelly mutters 'Oh, his and mine is entirely different' after Fujisaki says 'within reason' — a wry acknowledgment that the two sides have very different definitions of reasonable.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Juditha Brown

bias

Baker sought to establish that Brown is involved in litigation against Simpson (the custody proceeding) to show she has a personal stake beyond being Nicole's mother.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8527 • 16 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103