Well, the motion is to exclude the diaries and exclude the diaries that he's just gone into, any further excludes the diary of May 2, 1994 and June 3, 1994 under the points and authorities set forth therein.
The fact that this is double hearsay that under the new Evidence Code Section 1370, there isn't a threat of physical violence, and under 352 the language contained herein is quite volatile, it has virtually no probative value.
He can ask him anything he wants relative to the IRS, but the probative value of this relative to the prejudicial effect, in my opinion, far outweighs the prejudicial -- far outweighs the probative value, in addition to the hearsay upon hearsay, and they have not demonstrated that these statements were made to indicate trustworthiness under Evidence Code Section 1252.
We don't know when they were made. I mean, I suppose you can say by innuendo they were made on the date that she says they were made. But Mr. Simpson will deny that any of this was ever said on June 3 and will deny that he has ever called her these kinds of names. So ...
Your Honor, we've been through this several times. The statements or admissions and they're -- the statements are admissions and they're also relevant to -- directly relevant to her state of mind. It's her handwriting. If he wants to deny them, fine.
In addition, Mr. Baker directly argued in his opening statement on numerous occasions about Nicole's state of mind, indicating it was Simpson who broke up the relationship, indicating there's no anger, no hostility between the parties.
Now, if he wanted to keep something like this out, he had to stay away from all those points, and he specifically referenced it over and over in his opening statement.
Page references. And he said that Nicole Simpson was her confidante and is basically trying to convince the jury that there was no reason for a motive at all, nothing was happening between these parties that would suggest a motive. He affirmatively put that on in his opening statement. He directly made the state of mind of both parties relevant. And this goes exactly to showing what was happening in the relationship days before she was killed.
The Court rules as follows:
First, the Court rules that there is a constitutional issue raised as to 1370 of the Evidence Code in the memorandum.
The Court finds that the statute is constitutional.
Number 2, the Court will allow the use of those documents for the purposes of showing the decedent's state of mind.
3, with regards to any specific threats, unless counsel shows me a threat, insofar as a threat exception is concerned, I don't see how that would apply.
Her state of mind is coming in. Her state of mind with regards to the relationship is coming in.
Okay.
The probative value of this relative to the prejudicial effect, in my opinion, far outweighs the prejudicial -- far outweighs the probative value, in addition to the hearsay upon hearsay.
If he wanted to keep something like this out, he had to stay away from all those points, and he specifically referenced it over and over in his opening statement.
The Court will allow the use of those documents for the purposes of showing the decedent's state of mind.
Mr. Simpson will deny that any of this was ever said on June 3 and will deny that he has ever called her these kinds of names.