📄 Opening statement — Daniel Petrocelli — Thursday, February 6, 1997
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\OPENING-STATEMENT-DANIEL-PETRO.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 55 of 57

Opening statement — Daniel Petrocelli

Examiner: Daniel Petrocelli
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 10
Daniel Petrocelli delivers his opening statement in the punitive damages phase of the civil trial, after the jury has already found Simpson liable and awarded compensatory damages. He explains California law on punitive damages, previews a financial condition dispute — Goldman claiming Simpson has millions, Simpson claiming he is broke — and frames the jury's final task as deciding the appropriate financial punishment. Baker objects twice, once overruled and once sustained.
1 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you, Your Honor.

OPENING STATEMENT

2 MR. PETROCELLI:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

3 JURORS:

Good morning.

4 MR. PETROCELLI:

Well, you have now finally determined responsibility for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. And you have concluded that the defendant, Orenthal Simpson, is the man who took their lives away on June 12, 1994. You have concluded and determined that he acted with malice and he acted with oppression when he savagely attacked and killed Ron and Nicole. He did so by clear and convincing evidence. You have concluded that Mr. Simpson must pay compensatory damages to compensate Ron's parents, my client Fred Goldman, and Ronald's mother, Sharon Rufo, for the loss Mr. Simpson caused them by taking away their son forever. Now, you have one final duty to perform before you are all discharged from your seats on this historic jury, before you can get on with the rest of your lives that you all put on hold to do your duty as jurors. And that, as the judge has just said, is to decide whether and how much Mr. Simpson should be punished by paying an award of punitive damages; punitive damages to the estate of Ronald Goldman, and the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, for the benefit of their heirs. Ronald's heirs are, again, Mr. Goldman and Ronald's mother, Sharon Rufo. Nicole's heirs are her two small children; Sydney and Justin. We are, as you all have come to learn, in a civil courtroom, in a civil case. We are not dealing with the criminal prosecution.

5 MR. BAKER:

I would object, Your Honor. This is not an indication of what he is attempting to prove in this case -- of the case, it's more of a final argument.

6 THE COURT:

Overruled.

7 MR. PETROCELLI:

We don't have the power or liberty to take away a person's freedom or liberty when he violates the rights of another person. All we can do in this courtroom -- all we can do is pay them money. That's all we can do. There's no power to do anything else. And, of course, here, we're not just talking about any violation with you, but we are talking about the most unconscionable violation.

8 MR. BAKER:

I object again, Your Honor, this is argument. This is not opening remarks.

9 THE COURT:

That objection is sustained.

10 MR. PETROCELLI:

We're talking about whether Mr. Simpson should pay and how much he should pay for taking the life -- taking the lives of two people. Now, under California law, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about punitive damages, whether they should be awarded and how much, we are required to give you information about the defendant's financial condition. And the reason is simple: It takes a lot less to punish a poor man than it does a rich man. The law says we have to know something about the defendant's financial condition to determine the appropriate measurement of financial punishment. Do we know everything and can we know everything? We will not be able to tell you that in any kind of detail. Whatever we were able to get from the defendant we will present to you to try to give you some idea, some picture of this man's worth and his wealth, so that you can decide what is appropriate by way of punishment. Why do we have something called punitive damages; is it just to punish? No, it's also to make an example; make sure something like this never happens again. That is something that you will have to take into account after you hear some of this testimony. I will then come back, talk to you again, and discuss with you some of the evidence that we heard, and talk to you about why I believe in this case severe punitive damages are necessary to punish Mr. Simpson for what he did on June 12. Now, Mr. Gelblum is going to present the witnesses. We have two witnesses. And then Mr. Baker may present some witnesses. We will present evidence that Mr. Simpson has a lot of money, in the neighborhood of many millions of dollars. Mr. Simpson will present some witnesses to say that he is broke. And you will have to determine who is telling the truth. Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Daniel Petrocelli
All we can do in this courtroom -- all we can do is pay them money. That's all we can do. There's no power to do anything else.
Petrocelli frames the fundamental limitation of civil justice — no incarceration, only money — to prime the jury toward a large punitive award.
Daniel Petrocelli
It takes a lot less to punish a poor man than it does a rich man.
Succinctly explains the legal rationale for presenting Simpson's financial condition, while implicitly signaling he is wealthy.
Daniel Petrocelli
We will present evidence that Mr. Simpson has a lot of money, in the neighborhood of many millions of dollars. Mr. Simpson will present some witnesses to say that he is broke. And you will have to determine who is telling the truth.
Sets up the core factual dispute of the punitive damages phase: Simpson's true net worth.
Daniel Petrocelli
Nicole's heirs are her two small children; Sydney and Justin.
A pointed reminder of who stands to benefit — Simpson's own children — adding emotional complexity to the damages calculation.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert BakerHiroshi Fujisaki
Baker objects that Petrocelli's opening remarks are 'more of a final argument.' Overruled. Baker objects again when Petrocelli calls the violation 'most unconscionable.' Sustained.
strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Orenthal Simpson
preemptive framing
Petrocelli telegraphs that Simpson will claim poverty and invites the jury to disbelieve him, framing the financial dispute as a credibility contest before any testimony is heard.

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)
Proceeding 8889 • 10 utterances • Prosecution
Civil Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 FEB 6, 1997 📄 Opening statement — Daniel Pet
FEB 6, 1997 KRT DvH TD