Direct examination of Leroy Taft

📄 Direct examination of Leroy Taft — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-LEROY-TA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Exhibit admissions and jury resumption Sidebar: discovery dispute ▶

Witness: Leroy Taft
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 58

Robert Baker conducted a direct examination of Leroy 'Skip' Taft, O.J. Simpson's personal attorney and business manager of over 35 years, covering Simpson's financial condition since June 12, 1994. Taft testified that Simpson has been largely disengaged from his own finances, leaving management entirely to Taft, and that Simpson has systematically liquidated assets — a New York condo, Laguna condominiums, and Honey Baked Ham franchise interests — to pay personal, business, and legal defense bills. The examination ended mid-stream at a bench conference when plaintiffs' counsel objected that defense was eliciting information they had specifically been denied in discovery.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

Call Skip Taft, Your Honor.

# 2 THE CLERK:

Sir, you may take a seat in the witness stand. LEROY TAFT, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, having been previously sworn testified further as follows:

# 3 THE CLERK:

You are still under oath from your previous trial testimony. Would you please have a seat and state your name again for the record.

# 4 LEROY TAFT:

Leroy, L-e-r-o-y, Taft, T-a-f-t.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 5 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Taft, are you licensed to practice law in the State of California?

# 6 A:

Yes, I am.

# 7 Q:

How long have you been so licensed?

# 8 A:

Over 35 years.

# 9 Q:

And generally describe your educational background and experience.

# 10 A:

Law degree and practicing in the business transaction field for the last 30 years, and as a represent -- I represented O.J. since he was a rookie at Buffalo.

# 11 Q:

All right. 1969?

# 12 A:

1969.

# 13 Q:

And when you say you've represented him, what are your duties and responsibilities relative to your representation of O.J. Simpson?

# 14 A:

Well, at the present time I serve in a lot of roles; as his personal attorney, his business attorney, and his business manager.

# 15 Q:

All right. And tell us what it entails, what are your duties and responsibilities as business manager for O.J.?

# 16 A:

Well, it's a large gamut of -- of both personal and business responsibilities. My office handles all of the banking and all of the payment of the bills, and really, basically, reviewing all transactions that may have a legal effect on Mr. Simpson's rights and duties.

# 17 Q:

All right. Now, do you take care of his acquisition and sale of property?

# 18 A:

Yes, I do.

# 19 Q:

Do you take care of his acquisition and sale of personal property?

# 20 A:

Yes, I do.

# 21 Q:

And do you, through your office, take care of and write the checks for his expenses, day-to-day living expenses.

# 22 A:

Yes, I do.

# 23 Q:

And do you keep accounting records and data relative to the information -- the financial information for Mr. Simpson?

# 24 A:

Yes, I do.

# 25 Q:

And does O.J. Simpson really have, to your knowledge, a personal knowledge of his own financial condition?

# 26 A:

Not probably at this time. We regularly met before all of this transaction -- pardon me, before June 12, 1994, on a regular basis. But since he was arrested and charged and jailed for murder, of course, it's been difficult and his focus has been more on the criminal and the civil trial and the custody matter. And so more and more of the work is on my shoulders, and very little of it is really, basically, communicated to Mr. Simpson, by his choice.

# 27 Q:

All right. Now, since June 12, 1994, has he disposed of significant assets?

# 28 A:

Since what date?

# 29 Q:

Since June 12, 1994?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

Has he disposed of assets to maintain or just to pay bills?

# 32 A:

That's correct. He virtually -- yes, that's correct.

# 33 Q:

He had a condominium in New York, did he not?

# 34 A:

Correct.

# 35 Q:

That's been liquidated, has it not?

# 36 A:

That correct.

# 37 Q:

What was the money used for when the condominium was liquidated?

# 38 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, relevancy. The issue is his present financial condition.

# 39 MR. BAKER:

If they can go 25 years in the future, it seems to me I can go a few months in the past.

KEY QUOTE

# 40 MR. GELBLUM:

It's present value of that future earnings, Your Honor. Different issue.

# 41 THE COURT:

I'll allow it.

# 42 A:

What was the proceeds used for?

# 43 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Yes.

# 44 A:

Part of it was used to retire the encumbrance that was on that property, and the balance of it was used to pay bills, both personal, business, and criminal and civil defense.

# 45 Q:

And his condominiums in Laguna, were they liquidated?

# 46 A:

Yes, they were.

# 47 Q:

And what was that money used for?

# 48 A:

Well, that -- those condominiums were part of the profit-sharing pension plan. So those monies, although they were losses, they remained in the plans, to the extent that there was cash -- net cash realized.

# 49 Q:

Did Mr. Simpson have an interest in some Honey Baked Ham franchises?

# 50 A:

Yes, he did.

# 51 Q:

Has that been liquidated?

# 52 A:

Yes.

# 53 Q:

What happened to that money?

# 54 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. We requested and were refused this information, specifically.

KEY QUOTE

# 55 MR. BAKER:

You got that information.

# 56 THE COURT:

Just a minute.

# 57 MR. GELBLUM:

We got the proceeds, not what it was used for.

# 58 THE COURT:

Approach the bench.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Leroy Taft

I represented O.J. since he was a rookie at Buffalo.

Establishes the depth and duration of the relationship — Taft has been Simpson's attorney since 1969, making him a uniquely credible witness on Simpson's finances.

Leroy Taft

Since he was arrested and charged and jailed for murder, of course, it's been difficult and his focus has been more on the criminal and the civil trial and the custody matter. And so more and more of the work is on my shoulders, and very little of it is really, basically, communicated to Mr. Simpson, by his choice.

Frames Simpson as financially disengaged by necessity, not evasion — a defense narrative against any suggestion he is hiding assets.

Peter Gelblum

Objection. We requested and were refused this information, specifically.

Reveals a discovery dispute: plaintiffs sought but were denied information about how asset sale proceeds were used, yet Baker is now eliciting that same testimony at trial.

Robert Baker

If they can go 25 years in the future, it seems to me I can go a few months in the past.

Baker's quick rejoinder on the relevancy objection, drawing an equivalence between plaintiffs' use of future earnings projections and his use of recent asset history.

Notable Exchanges (2)

Peter Gelblum•Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Gelblum objected that Baker was eliciting details about Honey Baked Ham proceeds that plaintiffs had specifically requested in discovery and been refused. Baker disputed this. Fujisaki called both to the bench, ending the transcript.

strategic

Peter Gelblum•Robert Baker

Gelblum objected to relevancy of past asset liquidations; Baker argued symmetry with plaintiffs' use of future earnings projections. Fujisaki allowed the testimony.

procedural

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8904 • 58 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103