We object to any evidence relative to the 1985/84 incidents as being remote and not involving domestic violence and not likely to lead to any probative evidence, and under 352 the prejudicial value outweighs any probative value.
This is where Mr. Simpson allegedly hit the windshield with a baseball bat of a car owned by him. There was no report made of it until 1989. The incident -- although Fuhrman testified in the criminal trial that the incident couldn't have occurred in '85. And so this was 10 years before any incident and before these murders took place and we think it's remote in time, number one, and time consuming, prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value.
Your Honor, this is within ten years of the murders themselves. We believe it demonstrates his propensity and temperament to commit these acts. It demonstrates his rage.
This is one incident. Probably a five-minute witness, Your Honor, in terms of his testimony, so there's no --
KEY QUOTEOne other point. Sorry to double team here. I understand your blanket ruling about statements of Nicole Brown Simpson, but this witness -- there's no telling how long after the incident he shows up, and this is a Westec officer at that time. This is simply the report from -- of Nicole, of what she says happened that led to this.
This witness, he has no percipient knowledge of what actually occurred, other than he says he saw a windshield broken which is true, but that's it.
I mean, otherwise it's a report from Nicole sometime later that same day. You know, he's going to say that she was crying, but crying doesn't make it an exited utterance as far as I know.
He can testify as to her state of mind, not only that she was crying, that she was upset, she seemed frightened, that it had just happened at the time, it was even before the police officers arrived at the scene he summoned as part of his private security for --
Sorry. Part of the private security shows up there even before the uniformed patrol officers, which -- he will testify to her demeanor, her appearance, the statements she made, what his observations were, and that's it.
Under People versus Zack, this is relevant to show the nature of the relationship between the parties.
Your Honor, they're showing one incident in 1984, and this is not to show the relationship of the parties, and it's so remote in time that it should be excluded, much less the fact that it isn't an excited utterance, I'll submit.
This is where Mr. Simpson allegedly hit the windshield with a baseball bat of a car owned by him. There was no report made of it until 1989.
This is within ten years of the murders themselves. We believe it demonstrates his propensity and temperament to commit these acts. It demonstrates his rage.
crying doesn't make it an exited utterance as far as I know.
Okay. Overruled.