Redirect examination of Neill Freeman

📄 Redirect examination of Neill Freeman — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Neill Freeman Recross-examination of Neill Freeman ▶

Witness: Neill Freeman
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 82

Plaintiffs' attorney Gelblum conducts redirect examination of financial expert Neill Freeman, rehabilitating his damages testimony after Baker's cross. Gelblum focuses on three areas: confirming that Simpson's post-murder revenues were exploitation of name and likeness (supporting the $25 million figure), undermining the defense's $1 valuation of a $1 million Orenthal Productions receivable by showing over $750,000 was paid out, and introducing a 1995 loan application (Exhibit 2415) signed by Simpson's attorney during the criminal trial showing monthly income of over $111,000 — signed under penalty of perjury.

# 1 MR. GELBLUM:

Sure.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

# 2 Q:

Is your expertise in valuing name and likeness?

# 3 A:

No, sir.

# 4 Q:

You relied on Mr. Roesler for that?

# 5 A:

I did.

# 6 Q:

Mr. Baker asked you several questions about whether you asked Mr. Goodfriend and Mr. Taft for information. Did you understand you had the ability to call him up on the phone and get information from him?

# 7 A:

No, sir. I was under the impression that all my requests had to go through you.

# 8 Q:

Their witnesses for the other side?

# 9 A:

That's correct.

# 10 Q:

Now, Mr. Baker asked you some questions about whether you'd seen any documents reflecting receipts by Mr. Simpson of revenues based on his name and likeness. Could you put up, Steve, the summary of the profits gained from the murders, on the Elmo, please. (Document is displayed on Elmo.)

# 11 Q:

You do understand a significant portion of those revenues to have come as a result of Mr. Simpson's name and likeness?

# 12 A:

Yes, sir, I do.

# 13 Q:

Autographs, memorabilia?

# 14 A:

Photos.

# 15 Q:

Interviews?

# 16 A:

Interviews, yes, sir.

# 17 Q:

And do you understand that Mr. Roesler in fact included in his, what he's calling the name and likeness valuation that ended up in your $25 million number, book sales as well?

# 18 A:

Yes, sir.

# 19 MR. BAKER:

I'm going for object to him leading this witness.

# 20 THE COURT:

This is redirect. I'll allow certain latitude.

# 21 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) So, in fact, the bulk if not all of the $2.8 million there which we saw on the other sheet as having been earned in about a 15-month period, in fact, is a result of the exploitation of his name and likeness?

# 22 A:

I would consider all those exploitation of name and likeness.

# 23 Q:

Okay. Mr. Baker also asked you some questions about Orenthal Productions' loan receivable, the $265,000?

# 24 A:

Yes, sir, he did.

# 25 Q:

Right. And you saw a February 15, 1996 financial statement prepared by the defense, correct?

# 26 A:

Yes, sir, I did.

# 27 Q:

Okay. And you saw a document of that date for Orenthal Productions as well, correct?

# 28 A:

Yes, sir, I did.

# 29 Q:

And did that document, as of February 15, show an amount payable to Mr. Simpson?

# 30 A:

Yes, sir, it shows --

# 31 Q:

How much?

# 32 A:

Shows $1,043,091 due to Mr. Simpson as of February 15.

# 33 Q:

1996?

# 34 A:

1996.

# 35 Q:

And on the February 15, 1996 financial statement from Mr. Simpson, what value did the defense put on that receivable, the $1 million receivable?

# 36 A:

They put $1.

# 37 Q:

Under the same rationale, that the assets were less than liabilities?

# 38 A:

Yes, sir.

# 39 Q:

And in fact, has Orenthal Productions apparently managed to pay over $750,000 to Mr. Simpson in the last ten months?

# 40 A:

Yes, sir.

# 41 Q:

Is that why you discredit the $1 valuation?

# 42 A:

Yes, sir. That's one reason.

KEY QUOTE

# 43 Q:

Okay. You also referred in your response to questions from Mr. Baker to a loan application?

# 44 A:

Yes, sir.

# 45 Q:

Okay. Just like to show you what I'll mark next in order as 2415, a 3-page document.

# 46 (The instrument herein described as a loan application was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2415.)

# 47 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Is this the loan application you're referring to?

# 48 A:

Yes, sir, it is.

# 49 Q:

Is that signed on the last page?

# 50 A:

Yes, sir.

# 51 Q:

And can you read the signature to the jury?

# 52 A:

It says Orenthal J. Simpson by -- looks like Mr. Taft, Attorney in Fact, dated 4/6/95.

# 53 Q:

You would say you thought it was '93 or '94. That's in fact April '95?

# 54 A:

Yes, sir, it is.

# 55 Q:

That's while Mr. Simpson was on trial?

# 56 MR. BAKER:

I'm going to object to this. That's outside the scope.

# 57 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 58 MR. GELBLUM:

If you move up to the top of the page, please, Steve. (Elmo adjusted.)

# 59 MR. GELBLUM:

I'm sorry, to the previous page. (Elmo adjusted.)

# 60 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) There's a monthly income figure shown for Mr. Simpson --

# 61 A:

Yes, sir.

# 62 Q:

-- at the top of the page. And the left-hand column, can you read those off for the jury?

# 63 A:

Yes, sir. The borrower is Mr. Simpson. Base employment income is 33,500, dividends and interest per month is $8,860 net, rental income per month is $7,125 and other income per month is 62,089.58, for a total monthly income of 111,574.60.

# 64 Q:

In your practice as a CPA, have you seen these kind of loan applications before, these standard forms?

# 65 A:

Yes, sir.

# 66 Q:

And are these signed under penalty of perjury?

# 67 A:

Yes, sir, they are. There's a federal perjury statute that makes it a federal crime to make a false or misleading statement in connection with the granting of credit from a federally insured institution.

KEY QUOTE

# 68 Q:

And again, the date on this is April, 1995?

# 69 A:

Yes, sir, it is.

# 70 Q:

Okay. Finally, sir -- you can take that down, Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.)

# 71 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Baker asked you some questions about the deductibility -- put up the adjust -- calculation of adjustments of deferred tax. I'll go down the deferred tax benefit there on the tax benefit for the attorney fees. You read Mr. Taft's deposition?

# 72 A:

Yes, sir, I did.

# 73 Q:

And did you see there that he -- what the basis -- is that where you got the information that they were claiming these fees as deductions?

# 74 A:

Yes, sir, I did.

# 75 Q:

And do you see that he said he got an opinion from a tax attorney allowing him to do that?

# 76 A:

That's correct.

# 77 Q:

Okay. Now, Mr. Baker asked whether if Mr. Simpson does not have sufficient income that he would not be able to use all of these offsetting losses; is that right?

# 78 A:

That's correct.

# 79 Q:

And by the same token, if Mr. Simpson has additional losses, he would not have to pay all of the various taxes that he had listed he would -- that he would have to pay; is that correct?

# 80 A:

To the extent that he had losses, it would offset the income, it would reduce the amount of taxes payable.

# 81 Q:

Thank you.

# 82 MR. GELBLUM:

I have nothing further.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Neill Freeman

They put $1.

The defense valued a $1,043,091 receivable owed to Simpson at $1, exposing the bad-faith nature of the financial statements used to minimize his assets.

Neill Freeman

Base employment income is 33,500, dividends and interest per month is $8,860 net, rental income per month is $7,125 and other income per month is 62,089.58, for a total monthly income of 111,574.60.

Simpson's own loan application, signed under penalty of perjury during the criminal trial, showed monthly income of over $111,000 — directly contradicting the defense's poverty narrative.

Neill Freeman

There's a federal perjury statute that makes it a federal crime to make a false or misleading statement in connection with the granting of credit from a federally insured institution.

Implicitly signals that Simpson's loan application income figures carry legal weight and cannot be dismissed as estimates.

Neill Freeman

Yes, sir. That's one reason.

Confirms the $1 asset valuation is discredited precisely because Orenthal Productions demonstrably paid Simpson over $750,000 in the subsequent ten months.

Evidence (3)

Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2415

Three-page loan application signed by Orenthal J. Simpson via attorney Taft, dated April 6, 1995, showing monthly income of $111,574.60, signed under penalty of perjury

introduced and read to jury

Informal

Summary of profits gained from the murders, displayed on Elmo

discussed — used to establish that $2.8 million in revenues over ~15 months derived from name and likeness exploitation

Informal

February 15, 1996 Orenthal Productions financial statement prepared by the defense showing $1,043,091 owed to Simpson, valued at $1

discussed to impeach defense asset valuations

Notable Exchanges (2)

Peter Gelblum•Neill Freeman

Gelblum walks Freeman through the defense's $1 valuation of a million-dollar receivable, then immediately establishes that Orenthal Productions paid Simpson over $750,000 in the ten months following that valuation.

strategic

Peter Gelblum•Neill Freeman

Introduction of the 1995 loan application showing Simpson's monthly income at over $111,000, signed under federal perjury statute during the criminal trial period.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ OJ Simpson / defense financial statements

prior inconsistent statement / documentary contradiction

Defense valued a $1,043,091 receivable at $1 on financial statements while the loan application — signed under federal perjury statute — showed monthly income of over $111,000; Orenthal Productions subsequently paid out $750,000+, exposing the $1 valuation as bad faith.

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8896 • 82 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103