Cross-examination of O.J. Simpson (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of O.J. Simpson (part 3) — Friday, November 22, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\22\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-O-J-SIMPS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 21 of 57

◀ Sidebar: Nicole's diary admissibility (2) Redirect examination of O.J. Simpson (part 4) ▶

Witness: O.J. Simpson
Examiner: Daniel Petrocelli
Called by: Defense • Date: Friday, November 22, 1996 • Utterances: 116

Petrocelli cross-examines Simpson on the financial and tax circumstances surrounding a letter he wrote to Nicole shortly before her murder. The questioning establishes that Nicole had been fraudulently listing Simpson's Rockingham address as her residence to avoid a ~$100,000 capital gains tax liability on the Bundy condo, that Simpson knew about and permitted this arrangement, and that after their May 1994 breakup he dictated a harsh letter to Nicole demanding she change her address — a move he knew could generate a serious tax problem for her. Simpson repeatedly attempts to split hairs over the word 'dictated' and backpedals on calling his initial draft 'harsh,' only to be pinned down by his own deposition testimony.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

# 2 THE COURT:

You may resume.

# 3 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you, Your Honor.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

# 4

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

# 5 Q:

After the evening at Nicole's apartment on May 22, 1994, three weeks before her murder, when the bracelet and the earrings were given to you, you sat down and composed a letter to Nicole in regard to an IRS issue, correct?

# 6 A:

At some point after, yes.

# 7 Q:

Now --

# 8 A:

I didn't sit down and compose it; that's incorrect.

# 9 Q:

Dictated it?

# 10 A:

I told Cathy, after I met with my lawyer, to write something to the effect of --

# 11 Q:

You -- but you did dictate the basic letter and gave it to Cathy, correct?

# 12 A:

Rather than just give Cathy instructions to write the letter herself, I gave the instruction to write -- I gave her some facts and asked her to write a letter, yes.

# 13 Q:

Let me read from your deposition, page 1242, line 3. "Q. That you dictated the initial draft? "A. I believe so, yes."

Now, just to explain this IRS issue a bit, when you and Nicole got married, as part of the prenuptial agreement, you gave Nicole owned title to a rental unit in San Francisco, correct?

# 14 A:

Correct.

# 15 Q:

As part of the divorce in 1992, Nicole got to keep that rental unit; it was in her name. She got to keep it?

# 16 A:

You know, seven years previous, it was hers when I gave it to her.

# 17 Q:

And she kept it at the time, as well?

# 18 A:

Yes.

# 19 Q:

She didn't give it back, in other words?

# 20 A:

Correct.

# 21 Q:

Okay.

And when Nicole moved out of Rockingham, she rented a condo on Gretna Green, right?

# 22 A:

Yes.

# 23 Q:

And then at the end of 1993, coming into January of 1994, Nicole purchased her own condominium at at 875 South Bundy?

# 24 A:

Correct.

# 25 Q:

And she sold the unit in San Francisco, the rental unit in San Francisco, to help pay for the condo at Bundy, right?

# 26 A:

Essentially, yes.

# 27 Q:

And she would have had to pay capital gains tax on the unit in San Francisco, unless it was rolled over into another rental unit on Bundy, correct?

# 28 A:

Yeah. I think she had a problem with that, yes.

# 29 Q:

It would have been a substantial capital gains liability, in the order of about $100,000 in taxes she would have had to pay if she could not roll -- roll it over into another rental unit on Bundy, right?

# 30 A:

No. I think when I -- I told her to find out.

# 31 Q:

But the order of magnitude was about 100 grand, right?

# 32 A:

When I asked her to find out, she was asking me to do something for her. I think she said it was 70.

I said, well, find out and put it in a separate account.

# 33 Q:

If it was $100,000, that wouldn't surprise you?

# 34 A:

I didn't get into her business at that point.

# 35 Q:

All right.

# 36 A:

Yes.

# 37 Q:

And the problem is, though, Bundy would have had to have been a rental unit for her to not pay these capital gains, as opposed to her primary residence?

# 38 A:

I believe that was her problem, yes.

# 39 Q:

At the time, you and Nicole were going through your reconciliation period, right?

# 40 A:

Yes.

# 41 Q:

That there was talk of your -- excuse me -- of Nicole moving back into the home with you at Rockingham, if it turned out that things would turn out between you, right?

# 42 A:

Yes. She was attempting to move back on numerous occasions in that year.

# 43 Q:

So the idea was that, well, she would list Bundy as a rental unit and move into your place, and in a few months later, when everything was just right in your relationship, in the meantime, she would list Bundy as a rental unit, even though she was technically living there, right?

# 44 A:

The way you're saying it is, I believe, incorrect.

# 45 Q:

Well, she moved into Bundy in January of 1994 and didn't rent it out, right?

# 46 A:

That's correct.

# 47 Q:

She didn't pay capital gains taxes at that time?

# 48 A:

I didn't really know her business.

# 49 Q:

You knew she didn't pay the capital gains taxes?

# 50 A:

I knew that she asked me to -- to -- could she list -- actually, my housekeeper asked me -- well, if you want to know, I could explain.

# 51 Q:

She asked you if she could list Rockingham as her residence instead of Bundy, correct?

# 52 A:

After a few things that happened, that is correct.

# 53 Q:

And you agreed, right?

# 54 A:

Not necessarily, no.

# 55 Q:

Well, you knew, then, after this conversation with you, that she then listed on her checkbook and on all her mail, Bundy -- excuse me -- your house, 360 North Rockingham, as her official residence, right?

# 56 A:

After she had done some things that I directed her to do, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 57 Q:

Mr. Baker, I'm sure will get into all that --

# 58 A:

Okay.

# 59 Q:

-- when it's his time.

And you and Nicole, from the time she moved in, in January of 1994, until the time you split up in May of 1994, were having discussions about if she would move in and when she would move in, right?

# 60 A:

No. She tried to move in on two or three occasions. I -- I kind of nixed it and I --

# 61 Q:

I'm asking you if you had conversations about it, that's all.

# 62 A:

I can't -- I can't characterize it, sir, as conversations, as I know on two specific occasions, she was attempting to move in and I said no, not until, you know, the time limit.

# 63 Q:

There was no definitive decision made that she would not be moving in?

# 64 A:

I think we both hoped she would, and if things worked out --

# 65 Q:

I'm sorry.

When you broke up in May of 1994, now, for the first time since she bought Bundy, it was official that she would not be moving back into Rockingham?

# 66 A:

Correct.

# 67 Q:

Now, she had this tax problem because Bundy -- your house was listed as her residence and Bundy was listed as a rental unit, right?

# 68 A:

I don't know know if that was a problem.

# 69 MR. BAKER:

Calls for speculation that she had a tax problem.

# 70 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 71 Q:

(BY MR. PETROCELLI) You knew she had a tax problem because Bundy was her residence, and yet, according to IRS records, your house was her residence?

# 72 A:

I didn't know what the IRS records were. I just knew that I would have a problem if she got caught doing what she was doing.

# 73 Q:

You knew she was listing your house as her residence?

# 74 A:

Yes.

# 75 Q:

Right

And she had your permission to do that, right?

# 76 A:

Well, she did it before she got my permission; then she talked me into saying it's okay for a while.

# 77 Q:

Okay.

And you went along with it?

# 78 A:

Yes.

# 79 Q:

After the two of you split up, you decided to write her a letter, telling her that she's going to have to change her address from Rockingham to Bundy, right?

# 80 A:

After -- after an incident with my housekeeper, yes.

# 81 Q:

And you knew that that could generate a substantial tax liability to Nicole, true?

# 82 A:

I didn't think so. I thought she'd just use somebody else's address.

# 83 Q:

You knew that she would have a problem on her hands, that she'd have to pay the money or find somebody else to use as her address, right?

# 84 A:

I don't think so. I think my understanding --

# 85 Q:

Okay.

# 86 A:

-- was -- was that she would have had a year to do it. I just didn't think.

If she got in trouble, I didn't want to be involved in it.

# 87 Q:

In any event, you wrote a letter that was somewhat harsh, this initial letter that you dictated, true?

# 88 A:

I didn't initially dictate it. I told Cathy, in substance, what I wanted her to write. Then I went to my lawyer, and I think -- and he helped me make it official -- more official, I guess.

# 89 Q:

Let me read from your deposition again at 1237.

"Q. You dictated a letter" --

# 90 MR. BAKER:

May we have a line, please?

# 91 MR. PETROCELLI:

# 92 Q:

(BY MR. PETROCELLI) (READING:) "You dictated a letter for Cathy to type, correct?" "ANSWER: Yes."

# 93 A:

Yes.

# 94 Q:

That wasn't true, you dictated a letter for Cathy to type, true?

# 95 A:

Dictation -- I have a little problem with. I told Cathy in substance what to write. If you want to say I dictated, I didn't sit down and say write this in word for word. I gave her in substance what to write.

# 96 Q:

And you reviewed it and --

# 97 A:

Took it to my lawyer.

# 98 Q:

You sent it to your lawyer?

# 99 A:

No; I walked into my lawyer's office and I had him read it. And I think he may have made some subtle changes.

# 100 Q:

And the initial draft you wrote was somewhat harsh, wasn't it, sir?

# 101 A:

I think he may have felt it was somewhat harsh.

# 102 Q:

Let me read from page 1239.

# 103 MR. PETROCELLI:

Line 1, Mr. Baker.

# 104 Q:

(BY MR. PETROCELLI) "Q. What did that letter contain or say, in substance, that this final May 31 draft does not say? "A. I don't know. I thought it sounded somewhat harsh."

# 105 A:

Yes.

# 106 Q:

You thought it was a little strong?

# 107 A:

Yes.

# 108 Q:

So now, on the stand, under oath, you will admit that the letter you wrote initially was somewhat harsh, as you said in your deposition, true?

# 109 MR. BAKER:

Argumentative.

# 110 A:

I don't think that's a correct characterization.

# 111 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 112 Q:

(BY MR. PETROCELLI) True, Mr. Simpson?

# 113 A:

No, it's not true. I think that the letter that Cathy wrote was harsh.

KEY QUOTE

# 114 Q:

You answered the question. Thank you.

KEY QUOTE

# 115 A:

Oh, I'm sorry.

# 116 Q:

Let me put up --

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

O.J. Simpson

I just knew that I would have a problem if she got caught doing what she was doing.

Simpson admits he knew Nicole was committing tax fraud using his address and was primarily concerned about his own exposure, not hers.

O.J. Simpson

After she had done some things that I directed her to do, yes.

Slip suggesting Simpson was directing Nicole's actions in ways he doesn't want to elaborate on, inviting further inquiry.

O.J. Simpson

No, it's not true. I think that the letter that Cathy wrote was harsh.

Simpson contradicts his own deposition answer ('I thought it sounded somewhat harsh') in real time, blaming his secretary instead.

Daniel Petrocelli

You answered the question. Thank you.

Petrocelli cuts Simpson off after he attempts to walk back an admission, signaling the impeachment strategy working as intended.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Simpson deposition page 1242, line 3 — Simpson admits he 'dictated the initial draft'

read aloud to impeach trial testimony

Informal

Simpson deposition page 1237, line 1 — Simpson confirms he dictated a letter for Cathy to type

read aloud to impeach trial testimony

Informal

Simpson deposition page 1239 — Simpson says the initial letter 'sounded somewhat harsh'

read aloud to impeach trial testimony

Informal

May 31 final draft letter from Simpson to Nicole regarding IRS/address issue

referenced, about to be displayed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Daniel Petrocelli•O.J. Simpson

Extended back-and-forth over whether Simpson 'dictated' the letter to his secretary Cathy. Simpson insists he only gave 'substance' and didn't dictate word-for-word; Petrocelli reads his deposition twice where he confirmed he dictated it.

strategic

Daniel Petrocelli•O.J. Simpson

Petrocelli establishes that Simpson knew Nicole was committing tax fraud using his address and permitted it, then withdrew that permission via a harsh letter after their breakup — framing him as someone who deliberately caused Nicole financial harm.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ O.J. Simpson

prior inconsistent statement (deposition impeachment)

Petrocelli reads three separate deposition pages where Simpson confirmed he dictated the letter and called it 'somewhat harsh,' directly contradicting his trial testimony attributing the letter to his secretary Cathy and deflecting ownership of its tone.

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8389 • 116 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103