I have two brief motions I'd like to make.
As the Court is aware, Lawrence Schiller has written a book that purports to contain a great deal of information provided to him by Robert Kardashian, who is one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys.
Much of that material concerns privileged communications between various members of the defense team and Mr. Simpson. In November -- November 28 of 1995, Mr. Simpson wrote a letter to all members of the defense team, and the letter itself is privileged, but I've been authorized to read a short portion, which states:
"I require that all information you have gained in the course of our professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you receive express and written permission from me, any written authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket authorization or waiver; therefore, it is essential that any draft manuscript be reviewed by me before it is shared with others, by others or . . ." perhaps "others."
This was not complied with with respect to that particular book.
My motion that the plaintiffs be precluded from asking questions about excluded material in this book, as Mr. Simpson does not waive, has not waived his attorney-client privilege.
To do so -- To ask such questions in front of a jury would be improper, require him to assert privilege in front of the jury.
My second motion is that they also be precluded from asking any questions about his not testifying at the criminal trial, as that is also privileged -- I think it's 913 of the Evidence Code -- would be improper to ask any questions or comment about that in front of a jury.
This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to take the stand. I don't have a clue what information they're talking about, what they contend is privileged, what is not privileged, what has been previously disclosed, what has been disclosed, and public sources and depositions and statements by the defendant.
I don't know how to deal with this, Your Honor.
KEY QUOTEWell, you do know how to deal with that motion with regards to his exercise of his right from self-incrimination from the criminal trial.
That motion is granted.
The rest of it is denied without prejudice.
I don't see any basis on which I should grant a motion at this late stage. There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that time.
Mr. Simpson wasn't planning to testify at that time.
He's now testifying. He's making the motion. We are not waiving the privilege. He should not be asked questions to assert it in front of a jury.
No problem with anything he testified at deposition. We're talking about this material in the book he has not already testified to.
As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think he's waived it.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, for clarification, the first motion that you did grant precluded me from asking Mr. Simpson -- or eliciting that he did not testify at the criminal trial?
I require that all information you have gained in the course of our professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you receive express and written permission from me, any written authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket authorization or waiver
This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to take the stand.
As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think he's waived it.
There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that time.