The end is in sight. We've been here since September 17th, four and a half months. Now, I will not take up a lot of your time. This afternoon you've heard a lot of oration, you've heard a lot of public speaking, and I'm not sure you want to hear a lot of what I have to say relative to this, but let me suggest to you that in a case such as this, it is incredibly easy to inflame the passions of you folks, and the folks in the audience, of anyone. You have, at the outset, promised us that you would follow the law. And you didn't hear much law from either of my two adversaries. You didn't hear much about the parameters that you're to use to decide whether or not punitives will be awarded, and if so, how much. Those were basically omitted. The Judge is going to instruct you whether punitive damages should be imposed, and, if so, the amount, therefore, is left to your sound discretion, exercised without passion and without prejudice. Reasonable deliberations. Based upon what? Based upon three items. The second item of the three items is what the testimony you've heard for the last two days is all about. The amount of punitive damages which will have a deterrent effect on defendant Simpson in light of defendant Simpson's financial condition. That is why you heard all of these numbers. The plaintiffs have the burden of showing a net worth and of proving to you that he has that net worth, so that you can use a net worth statement, and a net worth, to render an award, should you decide that you have not on Tuesday, last, rendered a large enough award. That's in your discretion. And what you have to do in that regard is to, obviously, as I suggested, to you punitive damages -- my worthy adversaries are trying to get you to substitute punitive damages for the incarceration of Mr. Simpson. You're not entitled to do that. He's already been acquitted in the criminal trial. And the reason the law says that punitive damages are to punish, as contrasted to destroy, is the same reason Mr. Kelly was arguing about. Mr. Simpson still has obligations. He still has to raise his two kids. And that's why an amount that would destroy him financially is excessive, as a matter of the law. And that's why we then talked about, with their experts and our experts, the dollar amounts. And I want to just take a minute of your time and remind you of a couple of things.
You recall Mr. Freeman, their CPA, and I took the liberty of getting the transcript from yesterday, and he agreed that if you remove this $25 million from the balance sheet, Mr. Simpson has a negative net worth. Now, if Mr. Simpson has a negative net worth, to award punitive damages is just destruction, it's contrary to the law. And he admitted that if that number is a fallacious number, there is no wealth that Mr. Simpson has any longer. And then their other expert, Mr. Roesler, he said, "If people out there " -- (Mr. Baker read a portion of the testimony of Mark Roesler from the civil trial transcript.)
If people out there are trying to sell Mr. Simpson's signature on football cards, et cetera, and there's no market, you would agree that if that's the case, your opinions relative to this 50 million, 25 million, or whatever million dollars, is flawed, correct?
That's what he admitted. That's what Mr. Roesler said. He said it is correct. That if there isn't a market, to put $25 million is pure, abject speculation. Now, let's take a look at it. Mr. Simpson has not one contract. Nothing. He doesn't have anything that is going to produce $50,000, $100,000, whatever the number. He doesn't have it. There is no contract. There is nothing. And yet, to listen to what they're -- I mean think of it. Only in a court of law, it seems to me, can you come in and say this man can earn 2 to 3 million dollars a year. Now, consider just that spread. Consider Mr. Roesler's testimony relative to spreads. He said his commercial endorsement value is virtually zero. That's what he testified to the Indianapolis Star before he was retained. Then he testified to you here in this courtroom, he said well, virtually -- virtually zero is 100 to 500,000 a year. Man, if that's virtually zero, I'm somebody's aunt. That's an incredible thing to say. So I think you can see that relative to the earning potential of Mr. Simpson, it is not there. This is made out of whole cloth. This is a man who doesn't market him, wouldn't market him, saying to you that he can do this. I can read a cook book, but I'm not a chef. I can tell you how to make a souffle, but I couldn't make one. That's what's going on here. And it's wrong. It is not appropriate in this -- this is a court of law. You are obligated to follow that law. And the law is you can not base your verdict on speculation. And this is total speculation. One more thing that I think is of significance. Mr. Petrocelli gets up and he accuses us of hiding assets, of being less than candid with you, of spending money, or shipping it someplace, or saying where did it go, where did it go? And he knows, as he sits there and as he talked to you, that they did not ask us to produce one piece of paper about disbursements. They wanted to know all the revenue. They didn't get the disbursements. Then they want to come and tell you, we hid assets. Now, if you wanted to find out if we hid assets, or moved, or anything, wouldn't you want the disbursement records of Mr. Simpson? Or would you say to yourself, I don't want the disbursement records because then I can't argue that he has done anything with the money? They had the right to get those. Everything -- every record the Court asked us and ordered us to produce was produced. There were documents upon documents that were produced even in the last week by Mr. Taft. There hasn't been one iota of evidence, not a shred, put before you that Mr. Simpson has tried to do anything with his assets. Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, for one second, just for a New York minute, if you will, that if Mr. Simpson were going to try to hide assets, he wouldn't protect his mother? You think if for one second he was going to move anything, he wouldn't have when they filed this lawsuit against him. Deeded the house over, quit claimed it to his mother. So that they can't now say that's your $250,000, and we want it. You think that -- I mean, of course not. Hasn't moved a cent. Has gone on living, that's true. And let's look at these numbers. I mean, Mr. Freeman gets up here and basically says, well, these are the numbers, I don't know if I can trust them, these are the numbers that we got, they are indeed the numbers we got and these are my adjustments and these adjustments are, well, they're a little speculative but I think they ought to be included. Well, CPA's don't include speculation. And this is total speculation and this is speculative whether or not Mr. Simpson survives. And those items don't belong in the balance sheet. They produce a negative net worth of Mr. Simpson.
(Counsel displays blow up entitled Summary of Orenthal James Simpson's Financial Condition as of December 31, 1996. Page 2.) What you're to decide is the punitive damages award today. Today. Monday. Whenever you make your decision. Not 25 years in the future. Not 2022. God knows where we'll all be in the year 2022. God knows whether Mr. Simpson will be alive, and the ages of his children and whatever, we don't know that. That's what they're asking you to do, is to speculate that this -- and can you imagine, can you imagine an income stream of 2 to 3 million a year guaranteed through the rest of your life. Holy moly. That would be wonderful. That would be terrific. But it doesn't exist for Mr. Simpson. And that's why we put on the people who actually market the memorabilia. Because Mr. Roesler even had to admit that if you can't market this stuff, that $25 million number is flawed. His opinions are flawed if you can't market it. There is no market for Mr. Simpson's memorabilia. It has been blackballed. There has been demonstrations. They block lines on calls. That is the real world that exists out there, and that precludes him from making a living. Making a living that was greater than he ever made before, is what they're telling you. And in his glory days he never made that, but they're telling you he can do that now. It is total conjecture. You didn't hear much about it from either of my adversaries because they don't want to deal with that. I just want to show you their views. I mean, I think it was pretty -- Mr. Freeman didn't have any problem inserting $25 million in his adjustments when he came to an adjusted net worth of 15, seven. And although the whole world is well aware of your verdict on Tuesday, he wouldn't reduce it by that. He wouldn't take the 8 and a half off to come to 7.2 because he doesn't want it on the chart or anything else a number of 7.2 million that you, under the law, cannot award in punitive damages because if that -- even if you believe all of this 2 to 3 million a year for 25 years, you couldn't award 7.2 because that would be excessive, that would be the destruction of Mr. Simpson, that would not be in accordance with the law. And it's to deter, not to destroy.
Object to what he stating the law, he's not stating the law. That's the Court's responsibility.
And so that's why he wouldn't put up 7.2. And then Mr. Petrocelli says that we have altered the books, cooked the books or something because of the diminution of assets at the time we were required to produce documents. And of course you know the reason. The reason is because on liquidation of assets, you have to pay taxes. Taxes are figured in. Mr. Simpson has had all of the taxes that go with the house, that go with the distribution and liquidation of all of his assets, and his assets go down to basically nothing. He has been living -- and when he got the $3 million that he got from the insurance policies, that he got from the sale of the only asset that produced an income for him, the Honeybaked Hams, those had to go to pay bills and they went to pay bills and that money is gone. You see how much Mr. Simpson has or had. In $6,849. And so now they're asking you to award millions upon millions. Based upon what, ladies and gentlemen? Based upon what? Based on passion. Based on the inflammatory nature of the facts of this litigation. And they are inflammatory, and I agree with that. But you have to follow the law. You promised you will follow the law, and the law is that you cannot have an award that is excessive in light of his ability to pay. What is his ability to pay? His ability to pay is negative. And so in light of all of that, they're asking you on top of the 8.5 million you already awarded to award whatever more. And the law is, as I suggested, in light of his financial condition, to deter but not to destroy. And so even under their numbers, even under their numbers, ladies and gentlemen, the 7.2 would have to be significantly reduced if in fact you believed that Mr. Simpson would earn 2 to $3 million per year for the next 25 years. And if you don't, then the award is -- basically you've done it on Tuesday. Because even by their own experts he has a negative net worth. And you can't then punish him for an act that would financially be destructive. And so, ladies and gentlemen, with the emotion aside, your decision is to determine whether or not you believe that in spite of the people that try to market Mr. Simpson's memorabilia and say there isn't one, that Mr. Roesler, who says there's a market of 2 to $3 million a year, is correct, or are those people that actually market correct. You make that determination. You make the determination as to whether or not you believe that this $25 million ought to be included to produce a present net worth of 7.2. If you believe it ought not, as I think you must believe, then, ladies and gentlemen, you have done your job and Mr. Simpson has been punished by the $8.5 million award of Tuesday. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, the judge will instruct you on the law and you will be given a jury instruction that will tell you that in determining whether to exercise your discretion to award punitive damages, you should consider not just the defendant's financial condition, as Mr. Baker was suggesting, but three separate elements. The other two he doesn't like to talk about, and they are the reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant and relationship between the damages and the harm suffered. Here, ladies and gentlemen, the reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant is murder. There isn't anything more reprehensible. In fact, it's double murder. And you are required to consider that, as the law will be read to you by the Judge, and you will be given a jury instruction: The damages must bear reasonable relationship to the harm suffered. The harm suffered is death.
The harm suffered is death. Two deaths. These are the factors that you have to take into account. All Mr. Baker is saying to you is, give his client a break. Give him a break. And his client didn't have the guts to come in here and ask himself. But he would like to you believe that he doesn't have the ability to earn a dime for the rest of his life, yet he lives in a mansion and drives a Bentley and has servants, and has an army of professionals to look after his estate and his fortune. And yet, he wants you to all go into that jury room and believe that he is absolutely flat broke. And the defendant was smart enough to know that he couldn't sell that to you, so he asked others to do so on his behalf. And I'll just leave it to your good judgment whether you believe that for one second, whether you're going to believe for one second he has no money, no ability to earn money. And you heard the experts that we put on, and they told you that when you add up this man's value -- and his greatest value is in his earning capacity, 15, 16 million, whatever it is, today's dollars, today's dollars -- we heard some testimony today or yesterday that he didn't make more than $600 the last six months in autographs or $30,000 in income. Yet, we see on a bank deposit, $70,000 show up. No explanation for that. We're not going to get into all the details. Let me just remind you what I said to you earlier today: You are the last ones. It stops here. You are the last ones who have the power to protect the victims. You have the power to punish Mr. Simpson for killing two people and walking away from it scot-free. I leave it to you to decide what is just.
Just one thing, Your Honor. I told you I wasn't getting up again. I am for just one thing. There was just one line that Mr. Baker said to you people; that was, that Mr. Simpson still has two kids to raise. And I just want to remind you, you have heard of lawyers being paid, accountants being paid, bodyguards being paid, pool people being paid, landscapers being paid, personal services people being paid. You didn't hear anything about kids' expenses. The children will be fine. This is a man who remains at Rockingham, and two wives and four children have come and gone. There's no assurance of personal protection in a financial sense for these children for the future beyond you people. Keep that in mind. I'm asking you to remember that. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson has not one contract. Nothing. He doesn't have anything that is going to produce $50,000, $100,000, whatever the number. He doesn't have it.
I can read a cook book, but I'm not a chef. I can tell you how to make a souffle, but I couldn't make one. That's what's going on here.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, the reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant is murder. There isn't anything more reprehensible. In fact, it's double murder.
He lives in a mansion and drives a Bentley and has servants, and has an army of professionals to look after his estate and his fortune. And yet, he wants you to all go into that jury room and believe that he is absolutely flat broke.
Two wives and four children have come and gone. There's no assurance of personal protection in a financial sense for these children for the future beyond you people.