Recross-examination of Kato Kaelin

📄 Recross-examination of Kato Kaelin — Tuesday, November 19, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\19\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-KATO-KA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 18 of 57

◀ Recross approval Court adjourned and exhibits admitted ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Daniel Petrocelli
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, November 19, 1996 • Utterances: 17

Baker recrosses Kato Kaelin on two points: first, pinning down the timeline of the thumps using Kaelin's criminal trial testimony (10:40 thumps, exiting his room at 10:43-10:44 after a 2-3 minute phone call with Rachel Ferrara); second, establishing that Kaelin never saw the cut on OJ's finger until after returning from Grant Kramer's house — not in the foyer, not under the coach lights, not in the kitchen. Baker also attempts to introduce that Officer Tippin (who took notes during Kaelin's early interview) is now employed by Petrocelli's firm, but the objection is sustained.

# 1 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you told Mark Elliott in that interview, when you gave that interview, that you thought the pictures moved, the thumps occurred at 10:40, right, about 10:40?

# 2 A:

I possibly said about, yes.

# 3 Q:

And you then testified in the criminal trial that you remained on the phone with Rachel Ferrara for another two to three minutes. At approximately 10:43 to 10:44 is when you exited your room, correct?

# 4 A:

No.

# 5 Q:

Let me read you from page 19879, starting at line 9 through 20. (Reading.)

Question: You indicated that you heard the thumps at 9:40 to 9:45?

Answer: Not at that time, no, it was 10.

Question: I'm sorry, 10:40 to 10:45. Thank you, sir. And you remained on the phone with Rachel Ferrara for another two to three minutes?

Answer: Yes. So at approximately what time was it that you exited your room to go out to the pathway?

Answer: So it was about two to three minutes after that time 10:43, 10:44.

That's what you testified to at the criminal trial, correct, sir?

# 6 A:

That was an approximation, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 Q:

And by the way, you gave this interview, the one that has the handwritten notes from Officers Carr and Tippin, and they were writing things down as you were talking to them, weren't they?

# 8 A:

I think so, I'm not positive.

# 9 Q:

And were you aware in any of your conversations with Mr. Petrocelli, in preparation for this testimony in this courtroom, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Tippin is now employed by them?

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. PETROCELLI:

Objection, it's false and it's irrelevant.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 12 MR. BAKER:

Pardon?

# 13 THE COURT:

Sustained. It's not relevant. It's not relevant insofar as this witness' state of mind is concerned. May be relevant otherwise, but not insofar as this witness's state of mind.

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the 13th, when you were at Mr. Simpson's home, after you had come back from Grant Kramer's house and gone into Mr. Simpson's place, you recognized the cut on his finger, correct?

# 15 A:

The tissue, and there was blood seeping.

Yes, I did.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 Q:

You hadn't seen that at all when you were with Mr. Simpson in the foyer, you hadn't seen it out -- when the coach lights were on in the entranceway, and you hadn't seen it when you were in the kitchen, correct?

# 17 A:

I hadn't seen it.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Baker

Were you aware in any of your conversations with Mr. Petrocelli, in preparation for this testimony in this courtroom, under penalty of perjury, that Mr. Tippin is now employed by them?

Baker attempts to taint Kaelin's early police interview by suggesting the note-taking officer now works for the plaintiff — a bias attack on foundational evidence. It was shut down immediately.

Kato Kaelin

The tissue, and there was blood seeping. Yes, I did.

Kaelin confirms he noticed OJ's cut finger on the 13th, but only after returning from Grant Kramer's — not during earlier interactions in the foyer or kitchen, undermining any claim he would have noticed or been told about it sooner.

Kato Kaelin

That was an approximation, yes.

Kaelin's hedge when confronted with his verbatim criminal trial testimony, illustrating the soft ground his timeline stands on.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Kaelin's criminal trial testimony, page 19879, lines 9-20 — timing of thumps and exit from room

read into record to impeach

Informal

Handwritten notes from Officers Carr and Tippin from early Kaelin interview

referenced to establish foundation and introduce Tippin bias angle

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Baker•Daniel Petrocelli•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker asks Kaelin whether he knew Tippin (who took notes at his early interview) now works for Petrocelli. Petrocelli objects as 'false and irrelevant.' Fujisaki sustains, explaining it's not relevant to the witness's state of mind — though notably leaving open that it might be relevant otherwise.

strategic

Robert Baker•Kato Kaelin

Baker walks Kaelin through criminal trial testimony establishing he exited his room at 10:43-10:44. Kaelin denies, Baker reads the transcript verbatim, Kaelin falls back to 'that was an approximation.'

impeaching

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Kato Kaelin

prior inconsistent statement

Baker reads Kaelin's own criminal trial testimony establishing the 10:43-10:44 exit time after thumps, contradicting Kaelin's current testimony. Kaelin retreats to calling it an 'approximation.'

⚔ Kato Kaelin / early interview notes

bias — investigator now employed by opposing counsel

Baker attempts to show Officer Tippin, who took contemporaneous handwritten notes of Kaelin's early interview, is now employed by Petrocelli's firm. Objection sustained before Kaelin could answer.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8342 • 17 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103