Redirect examination of Mark Roesler (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Mark Roesler (part 2) — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-MARK-R.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Mark Roesler Motion: nonsuit on punitive damages ▶

Witness: Mark Roesler
Examiner: Robert Baker
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 159

Robert Baker cross-examines plaintiff's expert witness Roesler, a celebrity memorabilia and licensing valuation specialist, attacking his methodology (no handwritten notes, report printed at plaintiff's attorneys' office), his fees, and contradictions between his trial opinion that Simpson could earn $2-3 million per year and his prior public statement to the Indianapolis Star that Simpson's commercial endorsement value was 'virtually zero.' Gelblum rehabilitates on redirect, eliciting testimony that Simpson's autograph value 'almost tripled overnight' after his arrest and has not decreased since, and landing a final jab about Roesler's unpaid bill being far newer than Simpson's own defense fees.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, I apologize. I forgot one area. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 2 Q:

Do you know anybody that wants Mr. Simpson memorabilia and card --

# 3 A:

Steven Hisler.

# 4 Q:

Steven Hisler just turned him down.

# 5 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 6 THE COURT:

Sustained jury to disregard that.

# 7 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, relative to your report. Your report was done the day I took your deposition in August of 1996, correct?

# 8 A:

No, sir.

# 9 Q:

Okay. Let me get page 45.

# 10 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Not impeaching. That's -- he said that's when he printed it out, not when he did it.

# 11 THE COURT:

Okay. Approach the bench.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Let me ask a foundation to perhaps save us some time. You have absolutely not one note relative to your opinions, correct?

# 13 A:

What?

# 14 Q:

No handwritten notes at all, sir, relative to your opinions and conclusions and speculations that you've given this jury here today, correct?

# 15 A:

My -- The opinion that you're speaking about was written on a computer which I routinely use, and it was printed out the day of my deposition, so, no, I don't have -- I don't normally have handwritten notes because I use a computer.

# 16 Q:

In fact, when you came out here to have your deposition taken you didn't have anything printed out at all, did you?

# 17 A:

I had the opinion on -- on my computer.

# 18 Q:

You produced nothing except a report that you printed out at the law offices of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, the plaintiff's attorneys, after you had spent the prior day with Mr. Gelblum, correct?

# 19 A:

No. That's -- it was -- I printed it out before. I printed it out the morning of my deposition, and I printed it out because I carry a computer, but not a printer with me, so I used his printer.

# 20 Q:

So you had not a piece of paper of your opinions until you went to the Mitchell Silberberg office and printed it out there, right?

# 21 A:

I guess I don't understand. A piece of paper?

# 22 Q:

Never mind. How much have you made for testifying in this case?

# 23 A:

How much have I been paid?

# 24 Q:

How much have you billed.

# 25 A:

I think I billed you $350 for my deposition, and I have an outstanding bill of -- in the area of $15,000.

# 26 Q:

How much do you bill an hour to come out and testify?

# 27 A:

In this?

# 28 Q:

In Mr. Simpson's earnings of 2 to $3 million a year?

# 29 A:

In this case, I'm being paid, I believe, $175 an hour.

# 30 Q:

Now, would you agree or disagree that the best evidence of how much Mr. Simpson could make would have to have as an input what he made in the past, correct?

# 31 A:

No, I would not agree to that.

# 32 MR. BAKER:

Nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

# 33 Q:

Mr. Baker showed you a part of a newspaper report quoting you saying you didn't think Mr. Simpson's commercial endorsement value was much at all; is that right?

# 34 A:

That's correct.

# 35 Q:

You still agree with that?

# 36 A:

Yes, I do.

# 37 Q:

Is that reflected in your opinion?

# 38 A:

That's reflected in my opinion as that -- his value in that one particular category.

# 39 Q:

Okay. And you think he has value in other categories?

# 40 A:

Yes, I do.

# 41 Q:

And Mr. Baker asked you in that same area questions about whether he had made this much money in the past. Do you recall that?

# 42 A:

Yes, sir.

# 43 Q:

Is it your experience in working with celebrities that when a particular area of revenue dries up, say advertising, endorsements, you try to move the client into other areas?

# 44 MR. BAKER:

This is so leading, Your Honor.

# 45 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 46 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) What do you do in your business if a particular area of revenue dries up?

# 47 MR. BAKER:

Lack of foundation.

# 48 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 49 A:

Well, a celebrity, particularly a celebrity like Mr. Simpson who's very famous, has numerous opportunities to generate financial revenue. So in his particular case, at this particular time, he has the opportunity to make more money in certain areas than he does in others. And at one time there he could not generate the types of money today, or he couldn't generate the types of monies before the murders for a book as he could today for a book. Or his autograph wouldn't sell for as much before the murders as it does today. But there are other areas that are less, so in his particular case, you know, it's -- it's a reshuffling of his portfolio, so to speak. And I testified earlier I don't know exactly what his portfolio was before the murders, but that's not necessarily relevant. I looked at what his portfolio is valued at today.

# 50 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. Mr. Baker referred you to the McCormick book excerpt. There. I think you still have it in front of you.

# 51 A:

Yes, sir.

# 52 Q:

Okay. I think that's Exhibit 2422. It's called the Top Endorsers. Is it the only area of revenue that Mr. McCormick is listing what you call endorsements? In other words, endorsing a product?

# 53 MR. BAKER:

I object. There is no foundation.

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Does it attribute what the sources are?

# 55 THE COURT:

Overruled. You may inquire what the sources are.

# 56 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The title says "Top Endorsers." And then the next line says, these sportsmen and women that have what they earn last year through endorsements and other off-the-field ventures.

# 57 A:

Off-the-field ventures would be autographs or memorabilia, things of that nature.

# 58 Q:

So it's not just endorsements?

# 59 A:

That's correct.

# 60 Q:

Are there any other football players on the list? Are there any football players on the list?

# 61 A:

Joe Montana is on the list as number 6.

# 62 Q:

How does his -- the value of his autograph as reported in the market place compare to the value of Mr. Simpson's autograph?

# 63 MR. BAKER:

Object to relevance, Your Honor.

# 64 THE COURT:

Sustain it as beyond the scope of the cross-examination. It's relevant.

# 65 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Mr. Baker asked you some questions about that phone card. You still have it there?

# 66 A:

Yes, I do.

# 67 Q:

All right.

# 68 MR. GELBLUM:

It's 2423.

# 69 (The instrument herein described as a phone card was marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2423.)

# 70 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) In your opinion, does that have some value because it has Mr. Simpson's signature on it?

# 71 A:

Yes, it certainly has value because it has his signature on it.

# 72 Q:

Okay. For you to know the value of that card as a package, are there any variabilities that you would want to know?

# 73 A:

For it to be valued as a collectible you need to know when this was produced, how many of them were produced, and what the value of it was originally. Might be other extraneous circumstances, but -- so there would be a host of factors that you'd need to know. But if you just had to value it in terms of the fact that it has Mr. Simpson's autograph on it, there's a minimum value on it just because it has his autograph.

# 74 Q:

Okay. Mr. Baker asked you some questions about whether you knew about sales at a Heismann show or the Super Bowl show. Do you know if Mr. Simpson tried to sell anything at those shows?

# 75 A:

No, I don't know.

# 76 Q:

Do you know if Mr. Simpson has been trying to sell anything in the last six months or at all?

# 77 A:

I -- I'm not sure if he has. It doesn't look like he's been trying.

# 78 Q:

Okay. Mr. Baker asked you a number of questions about Mr. Simpson's tainted image. Would you agree that -- normally, would you consider in your field somebody -- someone having a tainted image if they were charged with, arrested for, and imprisoned for double homicide?

# 79 A:

Yes, I would.

# 80 Q:

And what happened to Mr. Simpson -- the value of Mr. Simpson's autograph immediately after he was charged with, arrested for, and imprisoned for double homicide?

# 81 A:

His -- His value on his autograph almost tripled overnight.

KEY QUOTE

# 82 Q:

And has that increased or decreased at all since then?

# 83 A:

It's -- it hasn't decreased one bit in the two and a half years.

# 84 Q:

Mr. Baker also asked you some questions about the effect of this verdict, and I asked you about a poll. Did you look at a poll that was published in the Los Angeles Times yesterday?

# 85 A:

I saw yesterday's Los Angeles Times poll.

# 86 Q:

Did you compare that to --

# 87 MR. BAKER:

Objection 721.

# 88 THE COURT:

Excuse me.

# 89 MR. BAKER:

Objection 721.

# 90 MR. GELBLUM:

He opened it up. It's exactly this question.

# 91 MR. BAKER:

No. That doesn't lay Evidence Code 721, my understanding of that Evidence Code.

# 92 THE COURT:

Excuse me. The objection is overruled insofar as the scope of the cross-examination on that subject.

# 93 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you compare the results of that poll with the polls from a year ago?

# 94 A:

Yes. It was generally consistent.

# 95 Q:

So the polls hadn't changed materially?

# 96 A:

That's correct.

# 97 Q:

Now, if someone were to get on the stand and testify that Mr. Simpson has absolutely no value, his name and likeness has no value, can't sell anything at all, how does that jive, if at all, with published reports of the market place that are relied on by collectors in this field?

# 98 MR. BAKER:

Argumentative, outside the scope.

# 99 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 100 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Based on the literature that you referenced and Mr. Baker referred to regarding the value of Mr. Simpson's autograph, is it conceivable to you that it is impossible to sell Mr. Simpson's autograph at this point in time?

# 101 MR. BAKER:

Argumentative, outside the scope.

# 102 THE COURT:

Cross-examination on that topic. Overruled.

# 103 A:

It would be inconceivable to me.

# 104 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. And if somebody got on the stand and said they had not been able to make any deals, does that jive with the testimony you referred to earlier about Mr. Taft, that there had been 20 to 50 discussions in a four-month period about memorabilia?

# 105 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, he is arguing his case. This is argument.

# 106 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 107 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) If somebody were to get on the stand --

# 108 MR. BAKER:

Argumentative.

# 109 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 110 MR. GELBLUM:

Exactly the questions he asked, Your Honor.

# 111 THE COURT:

Well, you didn't object. He did.

# 112 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Do you have any doubt whatsoever in your mind, Mr. Roesler, that based on all the materials you reviewed, the standard publications, that Mr. Simpson's name and likeness has substantial value in the market place today?

# 113 A:

I have no doubt that it has a value of 2 to $3 million per year.

KEY QUOTE

# 114 Q:

Okay.

# 115 MR. GELBLUM:

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

# 116 THE COURT:

Recross. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 117 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Roesler, let's go back to that autograph card you say that has a value, in your opinion, of about 20 bucks.

# 118 A:

That was my earlier testimony, yes, sir.

# 119 Q:

And your earlier testimony was also that his autograph had a value of $60, right?

# 120 A:

I wouldn't say that's a proper characterization.

# 121 Q:

How much does his autograph alone have, that he can make a million to a million and a half a year on?

# 122 A:

Well, it varies depending upon what type of product it's placed on.

# 123 Q:

A piece of paper with his picture on it, a trading card?

# 124 A:

Those are --

# 125 MR. GELBLUM:

Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

# 126 THE COURT:

Sustained. You may inquire about the telephone card.

# 127 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) So his signature on a card with his picture is worth less than you say he would get for an autograph, correct?

# 128 A:

It could be.

# 129 Q:

Now, basically, relative to your statement to the Indianapolis Star that his commercial endorsement viability is virtually zero, correct. Do you remember that?

# 130 A:

Yes, sir.

# 131 Q:

Do you believe that if someone makes $100,000 a year to $500,000 a year for 25 years, that is virtually zero?

# 132 A:

Well, it's all relative. I believe that -- I believe that that's a nominal amount for Mr. Simpson. Yes, I believe it's a very nominal amount.

KEY QUOTE

# 133 Q:

Okay. So in your parlance, then, 2.5 million to 12.5 million equates, in your mind, to virtually zero, correct?

# 134 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, argumentative.

# 135 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 136 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You suggest that he can make 100,000 to 500,000 as a commercial endorser, right?

# 137 A:

Uh-huh.

# 138 Q:

And you tell the paper that his value as a commercial endorser is virtually zero, right?

# 139 (Nod affirmative.)

# 140 Q:

So my question to you is 12 and a half million dollars to you is virtually zero, right?

# 141 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, asked and answered, argumentative, multiplying it out.

# 142 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 143 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You would agree 500,000 over 25 years is 12 and a half million dollars?

# 144 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection.

# 145 THE COURT:

Sustained. I think you went over this on the first cross-examination.

# 146 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) And is your bill of $15,000 to these people, is it over 90 days old?

# 147 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, beyond the scope.

# 148 MR. BAKER:

I just want to know.

# 149 THE COURT:

Overruled. He can answer that.

# 150 A:

Is my bill over 90 days old?

# 151 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Yeah. Your $15,000 bill that you've got with the plaintiffs' attorneys, is it over 90 days old?

# 152 A:

I don't know if it's over 90 days old, but it's -- I don't know exactly how old it is. It could be.

# 153 Q:

Okay. Do you expect to be paid or do you think it's a bad debt?

# 154 A:

I hope to be paid.

# 155 MR. BAKER:

Nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

# 156 Q:

Is your bill 15 months old like Mr. Simpson's defense fees?

KEY QUOTE

# 157 A:

No, it's not.

# 158 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing further.

# 159 THE COURT:

You may step down. Call your next witness.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Witness

His -- His value on his autograph almost tripled overnight.

Core damages argument: the murders paradoxically increased Simpson's memorabilia value rather than destroying it, directly undermining the defense's claim his name and likeness is worthless.

Witness

I have no doubt that it has a value of 2 to $3 million per year.

The witness's bottom-line opinion on Simpson's annual earning capacity from name and likeness, delivered with certainty despite Baker's sustained attacks.

Witness

Well, it's all relative. I believe that -- I believe that that's a nominal amount for Mr. Simpson. Yes, I believe it's a very nominal amount.

Roesler defending calling $100,000-$500,000/year in commercial endorsements 'virtually zero' — Baker's trap closing around him.

Witness

I hope to be paid.

Candid, slightly vulnerable answer about his $15,000 outstanding bill with plaintiff's attorneys — Baker using it to suggest bias, then Gelblum immediately neutralizing it.

Peter Gelblum

Is your bill 15 months old like Mr. Simpson's defense fees?

Sharp redirect pivot: flips the unpaid-bill attack by comparing Roesler's recent invoice to Simpson's own long-overdue defense costs, reframing who has financial exposure.

Evidence (5)

Plaintiff's 2422

McCormick book excerpt titled 'Top Endorsers' listing athlete earnings from endorsements and 'other off-the-field ventures' including autographs and memorabilia

discussed; Gelblum clarifies the list includes memorabilia revenue, not just traditional endorsements

Plaintiff's 2423

Phone card bearing OJ Simpson's signature, used during examination to illustrate autograph valuation variables

marked for identification during redirect

Informal

Indianapolis Star article quoting Roesler saying Simpson's commercial endorsement value was 'virtually zero'

referenced by Baker on cross to impeach; Roesler confirms the quote but defends it as limited to one revenue category

Informal

Los Angeles Times poll from prior day, compared by Roesler to polls from a year earlier showing consistent public sentiment

discussed on redirect over Baker's Evidence Code 721 objection, which was overruled

Informal

Roesler's written expert opinion/report, printed the morning of his deposition at plaintiff's attorneys' Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp offices

challenged by Baker to imply improper preparation; witness explains he uses a laptop but not a printer

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker hammers the contradiction between Roesler's Indianapolis Star quote ('virtually zero' endorsement value) and his trial opinion of $100K-$500K/year in commercial endorsements, attempting to get Roesler to admit that $12.5 million over 25 years equals 'virtually zero.' Multiple sustained objections cut the line of questioning short before Baker can fully land the math.

strategic

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker attacks Roesler's methodology: no handwritten notes, report first printed at plaintiff's attorneys' office after spending the prior day with Gelblum. Roesler explains he works on a laptop and used their printer, but the implication of improper collaboration lingers.

pointed

Peter Gelblum•Witness

Gelblum elicits that Simpson's autograph value 'almost tripled overnight' after his arrest and has not decreased 'one bit in two and a half years,' directly countering the defense narrative that Simpson's name is commercially worthless.

revealing

Peter Gelblum•Witness

Final redirect: Gelblum asks if Roesler's $15,000 bill is '15 months old like Mr. Simpson's defense fees' — witness confirms it is not — neutralizing Baker's bias attack and landing a parting shot at the defense.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Witness

Roesler responds to Baker's convoluted question about 'a piece of paper of your opinions' with genuine confusion: 'I guess I don't understand. A piece of paper?' Baker drops it entirely: 'Never mind.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Roesler

prior inconsistent statement

Baker confronts Roesler with his quoted statement to the Indianapolis Star that Simpson's commercial endorsement viability is 'virtually zero,' contrasting it with his trial testimony projecting $100K-$500K/year in endorsements and $2-3 million total annual earnings.

⚔ Roesler

bias / financial interest

Baker establishes Roesler has billed $15,000 (outstanding) plus $350 for deposition at $175/hour, and that his report was printed at plaintiff's attorneys' offices after spending the prior day with Gelblum — suggesting financial dependency on plaintiffs and potentially collaborative preparation.

⚔ Roesler

methodological attack

Baker establishes Roesler kept no handwritten notes and had no printed report until the morning of his deposition, implying a lack of independent rigorous analysis.

Witness Demeanor

(Nod affirmative.) — witness nodding rather than speaking when confirming the 'virtually zero' statement to Baker

Objections

16 objections (11 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 8901 • 159 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103