📄 Direct examination of Leroy Taft (part 3) — Thursday, February 6, 1997
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-LEROY-TA.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 55 of 57

Direct examination of Leroy Taft (part 3)

Witness: Leroy Taft
Examiner: Robert Baker
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 210
OJ Simpson's business manager of 27 years, Mr. Taft, walked the jury through a detailed net worth statement showing Simpson had a negative net worth of approximately $9.3 million when including the $8.5 million jury verdict rendered two days prior. Taft testified that Simpson's income had dried up almost entirely — roughly $30,000 in the prior six months — and that prospects for future earnings were 'horrible,' with no contracts, no book deals, and no appearance offers anywhere in the world.
1 MR. BAKER:

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BAKER:

2 Q:

Now, Mr. Taft, when we adjourned we were talking about the proceeds from the honey-baked ham sale, Mr. Simpson's franchise of honey-baked hams.

3 A:

I recall.

4 Q:

Okay. And tell all the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where the proceeds of that sale went?

5 A:

About 8 -- between 780,000 and 800,000 went to pay federal and state income taxes that were owed back in 1994 and the balance of the money was used in the normal course of business to pay business expenses, household expenses and some legal expenses related to experts and travel and other related expenses.

6 Q:

All right. Now, was there a sale of policies back to an insurance company?

7 A:

Pardon me?

8 Q:

Was there a sale of policies back to an insurance company?

9 A:

Yes, there was.

10 Q:

And the proceeds of that sale was what?

11 A:

Well, the proceeds of that sale was paid by an insurance company for the full release of several policies under which Mr. Simpson was insured, to release all rights to defend and to indemnify.

12 Q:

And that --

13 A:

And that money was used to pay civil defense expenses, including some attorney fees.

14 Q:

And was that money also used to pay some of the past criminal expenses?

15 A:

No.

16 Q:

Was it used to pay experts?

17 A:

Yes.

18 Q:

Was it used to pay some of the experts' bills from the criminal case?

19 A:

Yes, it was.

20 Q:

And that remuneration was 1,750,000?

21 A:

That's correct.

22 Q:

Now, have we gone over basically all of the funds that Mr. Simpson has obtained from the sale of assets in -- the last large chunk of sale of assets in the last two and a half years?

23 A:

Let's see. We talked about the New York condo. We talked about the honey-baked ham termination. We talked about the insurance settlement. In 1994, after June, there were some stock options that he owned and he exercised his option on those stock options and there were some revenues produced from those stock options which created some of the income taxes that were still due and owing that we were unable to pay, and so those would also fall in the area of sale of assets.

24 Q:

Okay. Now, did your working papers from the cost and expenses that you paid for Mr. Simpson as well as the income receipts that you got from Mr. Simpson and turn those over to an accountant to produce various statements of net worth on approximately a quarterly basis?

25 A:

Well, it doesn't work exactly that way actually between my bookkeeper and myself, our computer at my office generates all the input that goes into keeping track of the expenses and the income and the assets and liabilities. Quarterly, we -- quarterly, we provide that to Marvin Goodfriend's office for possible adjustments in connection with the -- the accounting records as well as possible tax planning matters.

26 Q:

And then he reviews the statements and alters them in accordance with federal tax laws and generally accepted accounting principles?

27 A:

If necessary he makes whatever required adjustments. I rely on his expertise in that area to advise us on that.

28 Q:

All right. Has Mr. Simpson sent assets out of the country at any time?

29 A:

Absolutely not.

30 Q:

When you produced a statement of net worth as of December 31, 1996, does this document -- next in order, Erin. I'm sorry.

31 THE CLERK:

2424.

32 MR. BAKER:

Thank you.

33 (The instrument herein described as Networth statement as of 1-31-96 revised 1-31-97 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2424.)
34 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Does his statement of net worth as of December 31, 1996, which was revised 1/31/97, does that truly and accurately reflect what Mr. Simpson's net worth is?

35 A:

Yes, it does.

36 MR. BAKER:

Let's put this on the Elmo. Exhibit 2424 is displayed on lmo.)

37 MR. BAKER:

Can you back it off or -- (Indicating to Elmo.)

38 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) We'll go right to the bottom line. And then we'll go through it.

39 MR. BAKER:

Now pull it over to the net worth. The other way, please, Phil. Thank you.

40 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You have a net worth of -- of negative $856,000?

41 A:

That's correct.

42 Q:

And that does not include the $8.5 million that was awarded on Tuesday by this jury?

43 A:

That is correct.

44 Q:

And is his real net worth, including the verdict rendered by this jury, a negative of $9,356,157?

45 A:

Yes, in my opinion that is his true net worth.

46 Q:

And so he's basically insolvent?

47 A:

He cannot pay his bills.

KEY QUOTE
48 Q:

All right. Let's go up and look at the current assets. The current assets as of December 31 were in the bank as well as this note due from Orenthal Productions, of $6,849?

49 A:

That's correct.

50 Q:

You put that note at a dollar, and you saw this morning where Mr. Freeman had it at around -- I think it was $265,000.

51 A:

That's correct.

52 Q:

Why did you put it at $1?

53 A:

All right, let me explain that. On Orenthal Productions' books, it does show a payable that is owed to Mr. Simpson, approximately 269,000. But 99 percent of Orenthal's income is O.J. Simpson. If he doesn't work, Orenthal doesn't make a dime. So if he doesn't work, Orenthal can't pay his bills. So it's only realistic that we put down there the real facts. That's why we call it a dollar.

54 Q:

Now, let's talk about Mr. Simpson's ability to work for a minute. Do you have an opinion based upon your being his business manager for 27 years whether or not Mr. Simpson currently has an ability to work?

55 A:

Yes, I do.

56 Q:

What's your opinion in that regard?

57 A:

For the last 12 months, and that's been since January of 1996, I've seen a gradual drying up of demand for O.J.'s services in every area. All the areas that was testified by Mr. Roesler, none of them really exist. That's pure speculation. And I saw it all drying up to where it's virtually nothing in terms of anything concrete on my desk at this time or any even meaningful negotiations at this time. There is zero. That was before Tuesday's verdict. Now, after Tuesday's verdict, I would say that it substantially impaired even the prospects that existed before the verdict.

KEY QUOTE
58 Q:

All right. Now, you saw where Mr. Freeman had listed $600 in income from autograph signing from 19 -- last six months -- or I think all of 1996. Do you see that?

59 A:

Well, I was sitting over there. I heard you mention that. That didn't seem to track with my recollection.

60 Q:

Let me show you a document that was Mr. Freeman's and ask you to just look down on the calendar year of 1996 as to what he indicated was income to Mr. Simpson for autographs and memorabilia.

61 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Didn't purport to be for all of 1996. That's the only 1996 entry on there.

62 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

63 MR. GELBLUM:

Didn't purport to be all of his income for 1996.

64 MR. BAKER:

For autographs and memorabilia. I'd prefer to ask my own questions, with your permission.

65 THE COURT:

Clarify that question.

66 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You see the notation for $600?

67 A:

Yes, I do.

68 Q:

That's not correct, is it?

69 A:

Well, it's not -- it's probably correct for the time frame that the schedule provides, which is July 8, 1994 to April 10, 1996, in which it shows a $600 entry at that time. That may be correct, because I -- we don't keep books from, you know, July of '94 to April of '96, so I -- I can't say whether that's correct or not. If you would like, I could tell you in a better way. I could tell you what we might have done in 1996, the last 12 months.

70 Q:

Okay. In terms of it drying up, has it dried up in the last 12 months; that is, income to Mr. Simpson?

71 A:

Substantially.

72 Q:

In the last six months, how much income has Mr. Simpson made?

73 A:

In the last six months -- since April -- since August?

74 Q:

Yeah, August through January.

75 A:

Probably $30,000.

76 Q:

And has there been, to your knowledge, efforts to market his memorabilia?

77 A:

Vigorously.

78 Q:

Has there been efforts to try to market his signature?

79 A:

Vigorously.

80 Q:

He didn't make any $1.2 million in the last six months?

81 A:

No, he did not.

82 Q:

Now, as you sit here today, sir, do the contracts that request Mr. Simpson services, do they come across your desk?

83 A:

Every one of them.

84 Q:

And do you review those contracts and then take them to O.J. and determine whether or not these contracts are going to be signed and whether he's going to get any money from any personal appearance or interviews or that sort of thing?

85 A:

Yes.

86 Q:

At the present time, is there any contract in existence or offered or made to Mr. Simpson for any personal appearance anywhere in the world?

87 A:

Not one.

88 Q:

Is there any offer from any source that you're aware of, anywhere in the world, to have him sign autographs for any purpose?

89 A:

Not one contract. There may be a small amount of ongoing business for autographs, but probably not more than -- be lucky if it's $5,000 a month.

90 Q:

And does he have any employment contracts whatsoever, presently?

91 A:

None.

92 Q:

In your opinion, is the likelihood of him obtaining any contracts in the next year good, bad, or horrible?

KEY QUOTE
93 A:

Horrible.

94 Q:

And do you think that Mr. Simpson, because of the accusation of murders in this case, in this jury's verdict, is someone who is marketable as a sports personality?

95 A:

Absolutely not.

96 Q:

Now --

97 A:

And there will be testimony to back that up.

98 MR. GELBLUM:

Object.

99 THE COURT:

Sustained.

100 MR. BAKER:

You want to put that up?

101 MR. GELBLUM:

What is it?

102 MR. BAKER:

It's the same thing. Pull it down, please. I apologize. Can you go the other way.

103 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) We've got current assets of $6804; is that correct?

104 A:

Yes.

105 Q:

Then on that production note, that's the same as -- as in the current assets or is it a different note?

106 A:

It's the same note, but basically that just says that Mr. Simpson is 100 percent stockholder of that corporation, so we list it as a closely held corporation. But it has no value unless's he producing income.

107 Q:

And Pig Skins Inc., what's that?

108 A:

Well, Pig Skins Inc. was the company that owned a 50 percent interest in certain Honey Baked Ham stores which was terminated earlier in 1996.

109 Q:

All right. And the $242,500, that's the amount that's still due and owing, not the amount that he has already received and paid to IRS and various living expenses?

110 A:

Yes, that's correct. And in note 2, if you were to show the second page notes, you will see that that money has gone down to a current value as of 1 -- right here -- of 1/23, it's gone down to 170, and it's even down lower than that because we were paying bills daily.

111 Q:

And you're paying bills from the money that's coming in from the Honey Baked Ham?

112 A:

Correct.

113 Q:

The Pig Skin Inc.?

114 A:

Correct.

115 Q:

All right. Now, let's go back to May Medical. May Medical is -- you listed that as 42,000?

116 A:

Yes. May Medical is a partnership interest in a medical building that's -- if I say upside down, would the jury understand that. It doesn't take in as much as it has to service the debt against the property. It's on the verge of being foreclosed. And because it was a tax shelter type investment where a lot of deductions were taken early in the investment, if that does get foreclosed, there will be a large tax liability. Mr. Goodfriend is better qualified to touch on that.

117 Q:

Okay. Fair enough. Let's go down to -- so the total of closely held corporations and partnerships basically is 285,000. Can you see that?

118 A:

Yes.

119 Q:

All right. Now, on the assets, the OPI, both the 900,000 the 3.2 million that's his pension plan, correct?

120 A:

Correct.

121 Q:

The personal furnishings is estimated at fair market value of half a million dollars?

122 A:

Correct.

123 Q:

And the Rockingham residence has an estimated value of 3.7 million?

124 A:

Yes.

125 Q:

And that was done by an appraisal, was it not?

126 A:

It was done in April of 1995 when the property was refinanced. They appraised it at 3.7, and if anything it's gone down probably since then, in my opinion, because of the notoriety connected with the property.

127 Q:

Your view would not be the same as Mr. Roesler's view that the property has a greater value because it's his?

128 A:

No. It wouldn't be my view.

129 Q:

Okay. Now, the Apollo residence that you put down as a dollar, they put down $250,000.

130 A:

Yes.

131 Q:

Why did you carry that at $250,000 for a while on Mr. Simpson's summary of financial condition and then lower it to a dollar?

132 A:

Well, initially, Mr. Simpson, back in 1969, he bought that house for his mother. He had to take title in his name because the loan was going to be in his name, because he had the financial statement and Mrs. Simpson did not. So we all -- we have carried it all along in his name, but there's no beneficial interest as far as O.J. is concerned in that property. She -- Mrs. Simpson, the mother, has lived there since 1969 continually until the present day.

133 Q:

Since he has no beneficial interest in it, is that why you put a dollar?

134 A:

Yes.

135 Q:

There's some electric bicycles at cost, and his Chevrolet Suburban automobile at cost?

136 A:

Correct.

137 Q:

Okay. So he has total assets of 8.6 million?

138 A:

Correct.

139 Q:

Let's go to liability promissory note/ Hughes Guardianship, what's that?

140 A:

Those are two notes that he was ordered by the Court in Orange County to reimburse the guardianship for monies that the guardianship had advanced to an attorney, Marjory Fuller, for representing Justin and Sydney Simpson during the custody litigation.

141 Q:

Okay. This wasn't -- this wasn't for a lawyer for Mr. Simpson? He had a separate lawyer. This is a lawyer for the kids?

142 A:

This was a lawyer for the children appointed by the Court.

143 Q:

All right. And the 188,968, that's also attorneys accounts payable?

144 A:

That's the unpaid balance that hasn't been converted to any other form, other than an unpaid balance, tied to a court order that Mr. Simpson is obligated to pay those fees.

145 Q:

All right. There is a first deed of trust to Hawthorne Savings for 2.3 million?

146 A:

Correct.

147 Q:

Second deed of trust to the civil defense attorneys for 1.3 million?

148 A:

Correct.

149 Q:

There's Apollo residence, there's -- left on that first Mrs. Simpson's home, $1,959?

150 A:

Correct.

151 Q:

Mr. Simpson is on the title, so he's liable for that; is that correct?

152 A:

That's correct.

153 Q:

Still owing a million five to the criminal defense lawyers?

154 A:

Correct.

155 Q:

And deferred income taxes, if you had to liquidate, this is $4.1 million?

156 A:

That's correct. And that's shown on a schedule.

157 Q:

Right. We'll get to that in a minute. And there's $7,800 from the 1993 taxes, correct?

158 A:

Yes. That -- this speaks as of 12/31/96, that was the court order to provide a statement as of that date. Since that time, bills go on; you pay them as you're required. IRS demanded that this be paid, and we have paid that since.

159 Q:

Okay. And so that the liability exited Mr. Simpson's assets. Is that correct?

160 A:

That's correct.

161 Q:

And that, of course, doesn't include the eight and a half million dollars that this jury awarded on Tuesday, true?

162 A:

True.

163 Q:

Let's go over, just quickly go through the deferred tax liability. So you have on the $242,500, you have some tax liability, correct?

164 A:

Yes, you do. This was a schedule that I asked Mr. Goodfriend's office to prepare as -- as it involves taxes.

165 Q:

Okay.

166 A:

You may want to -- I would prefer to defer to his expertise.

167 Q:

All right. Fine, we will. Withholding going through that, that was included, but there Mr. Goodfriend figured taxes on the various assets based upon liquidation and the gains?

168 A:

Exactly right. We were asked to show a statement as of a given date as if it were to turn all the hard assets into cash in order to pay debts. In order to do that, there is -- four, five of the assets that are on that statement that has deferred tax liability connected with it. And the taxpayers have got to get paid before anybody else. So that's why it's fair to put it on there.

169 Q:

Okay. Fair enough. Now, so, as I understand your testimony, sir, Mr. Simpson has a negative net worth of basically nine and a half million dollars, correct? 9.3. I'm sorry.

170 A:

Including the verdict that came down on Tuesday?

171 Q:

Yes.

172 A:

Yes.

173 Q:

And it is also your opinion that he has no means of income at the present time; is that correct, sir?

174 A:

That's correct. Nothing pending.

175 Q:

Now --

176 A:

Nothing pending or nothing final.

177 Q:

Let's talk just a little bit about a -- we've heard that Mr. Simpson could have -- according to Mr. Roesler, he's entitled to $4 or $5 million for a book deal. Did you hear that testimony?

178 A:

Yes.

179 Q:

Now --

180 MR. GELBLUM:

Misstates the testimony. Doesn't say anything about being entitled to it.

181 THE COURT:

Sustained.

182 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Simpson tried to market a book after the criminal trial, did he not?

183 A:

That's correct.

184 Q:

And there were no buyers?

185 A:

No success at all.

186 Q:

And the asking price at that time, has -- from that time forward has been a million dollars; is that correct?

187 A:

What asking price?

188 Q:

In other words, Mr. Simpson had offered Random House, Little Brown, Viking, Penguin, and Judith Reagan, all to write a book for a million-dollar cash advance and was turned down by all four.

189 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Leading.

190 THE COURT:

Sustained, but you may answer.

191 A:

Well --

192 THE COURT:

Move it along.

193 A:

The actual offering and negotiations was handled by an agent in the east, and I'm not sure whether we start -- whether on Mr. Simpson's behalf, whether a dollar amount was assigned.

194 THE COURT:

Excuse me, Mr. Taft. I'll sustain it.

195 LEROY TAFT:

Pardon me.

196 THE COURT:

I'll sustain it on the basis of that answer.

197 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you know whether or not Mr. Simpson has been rejected by four or more publishing companies for a book deal?

198 A:

Yes.

199 Q:

And has he?

200 A:

Yes.

201 Q:

Has he been rejected by every publishing company for a book deal?

202 A:

So far as I know, we've never received one proposal in writing to do a book deal. Everybody else has, but we have not.

KEY QUOTE
203 Q:

Now, was the video deal a failure?

204 A:

Pardon me?

205 Q:

Was the video of Mr. Simpson's commercial a failure?

206 A:

Yes.

207 Q:

Okay. And he received certain guarantee payment; is that correct?

208 A:

That's correct.

209 Q:

And is there any suggestion or indication that he has any video, book deal, appearance deal, car deal, anything in the future?

210 A:

There is none at this point.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness
He cannot pay his bills.
The bluntest possible summary of Simpson's financial condition, offered in response to Baker asking if Simpson was 'basically insolvent.'
Witness
For the last 12 months, and that's been since January of 1996, I've seen a gradual drying up of demand for O.J.'s services in every area... There is zero. That was before Tuesday's verdict. Now, after Tuesday's verdict, I would say that it substantially impaired even the prospects that existed before the verdict.
Taft directly tied the civil jury verdict to further destruction of Simpson's earning capacity, making the damages award self-reinforcing.
Witness
So far as I know, we've never received one proposal in writing to do a book deal. Everybody else has, but we have not.
Directly refutes the plaintiffs' expert's claim that Simpson could command $4-5 million for a book deal.
Witness
In your opinion, is the likelihood of him obtaining any contracts in the next year good, bad, or horrible? Horrible.
One-word answer capturing the defense's core damages argument: Simpson cannot pay any judgment.

Evidence (2)

Defendants' 2424
Net worth statement as of December 31, 1996, revised January 31, 1997
Introduced and displayed on Elmo; walked through line by line
Informal
Freeman's income schedule covering July 8, 1994 to April 10, 1996 showing $600 in autograph/memorabilia income
Referenced to challenge accuracy; Taft said it may be correct for that time frame but couldn't confirm

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert BakerWitness
Baker and Taft walked through Simpson's asset list item by item, with Taft explaining why several nominally valuable assets (Orenthal Productions note, Apollo residence) were carried at $1 due to no realistic collectability.
strategic
Robert BakerPeter GelblumHiroshi Fujisaki
Baker tried to lead on the book deal rejections by naming Random House, Little Brown, Viking, Penguin, and Judith Reagan — Gelblum objected as leading, Fujisaki sustained, but the names were already in front of the jury.
strategic
WitnessHiroshi Fujisaki
After Taft volunteered 'And there will be testimony to back that up,' Fujisaki sustained Gelblum's objection and cut him off mid-sentence.
procedural

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ plaintiffs' expert Freeman
contradiction by defense expert
Taft disputed Freeman's valuation of the Orenthal Productions note (~$265,000 vs. Taft's $1), his income projections, and the $600 autograph entry, arguing Freeman's figures did not reflect economic reality.
⚔ plaintiffs' expert Roesler
contradiction by defense expert
Taft rejected Roesler's claim that Rockingham had increased in value due to notoriety, and dismissed his projected income figures as 'pure speculation' given the complete absence of actual contracts or offers.

Objections

6 objections (5 sustained, 0 overruled)
Proceeding 8885 • 210 utterances • Defense witness
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 FEB 6, 1997 📄 Direct examination of Leroy Ta
FEB 6, 1997 KRT DvH TD