I think morally it was dishonest of me, yes. I don't know if I would characterize it as a lie.
KEY QUOTEI don't know if I would characterize it as a lie. I felt it was morally wrong, when I look at it, yes.
You don't think cheating on your wife and mother of your two children is a lie? Is that what you're saying to this jury?
(BY MR. PETROCELLI) Are you saying that you don't consider it to be a lie to your wife to cheat on her?
At the time they were happening, no. But I told her about everybody -- one of them, yes.
KEY QUOTENow, in 1989, when you had this altercation with Nicole, you had beaten Nicole in the past, hadn't you?
You had beaten her in the past, and on one occasion, you and she went to a doctor and lied about what happened. True?
Okay. Approach again. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)
732. This is on the Joint Trial Exhibit 732, and these are writings which this witness testified he saw when he was in jail. And Nicole describes these various things that we're talking about, Your Honor. And she also described the 1989 incident, where she talked about Mr. Simpson beating her. And it talks about the incident where, previous to that, he beat her and she had to go -- they had to go lie to the doctor. And I intend to show him this and ask him why Nicole would lie about such things in her writings, if he has any reason to know that, directly relevant to her state of mind, directly relevant to the issues the defense that questioned Mr. Simpson about. I'm entitled to probe on the issue of his credibility.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor the evidence --
All previously argued --
MR. P. BAKER: Evidence Code 1370, as specific writings, that -- that this statement was made at or around the time of hearing. This doesn't do it. It says unless -- it must be -- it must be made within five years of the state of filing of this action. This doesn't say --
Her state of mind that they had had a hostile physical relationship, and that's what led to it being terminated. That's exactly what this letter's about. He got on -- on the stand and said just the opposite, Your Honor. He's put his state of mind, and he even said that Nicole's state of mind --
MR. P. BAKER: The jury can hear all of this.
I'll lower my voice. He has elicited testimony of Mr. Simpson that Nicole and he had a great, loving relationship, talked about that at length yesterday. It's all false. And this -- and he knew -- he knew these documents existed, Your Honor. His client has seen these. He can't mislead the jury like that.
This document was made sometime prior to 1990, probably, because it was well before their divorce, and she -- it's after this New Year's Eve incident that we've been talking about.
This is Nicole's handwriting. It's talking about the state of their marriage, which he characterizes as a loving, beautiful marriage.
He will testify this is Nicole's handwriting. He will testify he has seen this before. And he has to have some explanation why Nicole would write in here that he beat her in '89, he beat her prior to '89.
THE COURT: Jurors, you're excused for ten minutes. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion. (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)
I'm not using those lawyer documents you're talking about. This is the only one I'm intending to use.
So, I'm trying to respond to Your Honor's questions here. He recognizes the handwriting. He knows that this is Nicole's handwriting. By the content, we know about when it was prepared. It was during the marriage, and it was after the 1989 incident, so it's sometime in 1990 or 1991. And she specifically talks about the incident that they spent a lot of time on direct examination. And she -- it reflects her state of mind about what happened in this relationship, which he spent a great deal of time characterizing on his part and on her part. And she's deceased. And he elicited all kinds of admissions, statements by Nicole, hearsay statements, purportedly, under 1227. And the law entitles us to go into those same events, acts, occurrences, and declarations, including 1989. Your Honor, you can't have a one-way examination of a --
MR. P. BAKER: It says Supreme Court case --
Your Honor, I would ask that the Court read California versus Green, 399 U.S. 149. That case is on point. This is hearsay. He's trying to say because we explored the state of mind --
California versus Green. -- since we explored the state of mind of Mr. Simpson, that somehow that piggy-backs the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson in the evidence. It does not. This is a straight hearsay document that can't be used to impeach this witness.
The state of mind of Mr. Simpson during the course of the marriage was -- was proffered by you to show the nature of the relationship; it obviously wasn't proffered to show anything in regard to the specific motive at the time. You're trying to paint the picture through this witness and this couple that it was a loving, great relationship, marred by one minor incident in 1989. And you used him to do that. And you just said you put his state of mind in issue. For that reason, we are entitled to show her state of mind which relates to the same relationship and the same marriage that he's talking about.
I'm not familiar with it. I would rely on Section 356 of the Evidence Code, and I would rely on the state-of-mind exception. We're not arguing this is hearsay, that it's not hearsay; we're arguing that it's admissible hearsay, for all the reasons that I've been expressing on the record.
Your Honor, Nicole Brown Simpson didn't kill herself. Her state of mind is irrelevant to this issue. They -- I didn't talk about it. And no matter how many times he keeps saying it, what we were talking about, his state of mind, they're trying to make him a raging maniac. And we put in his character and his evidence relative to his state of mind; we didn't put in her state of mind.
He just made my argument for me, Your Honor, because by that being relevant, her state of mind to the same relationship is relevant. He just made my argument.
At this time the Court will conduct further proceedings with regards to the objection and try to ascertain exactly what is being objected to and what is being offered and for what purpose. Let's start with you, Mr. Petrocelli. Go ahead. What is it you are seeking to bring before the jury?
Yes. I'm seeking to question Mr. Simpson about the statements in Nicole's letter that in between Sydney and Justin's birth, Mr. Simpson beat the holy hell out of her and that they lied at the X-ray lab and said that she fell off of a bike. And I'm also seeking to introduce the statements in there in which Nicole describes the New Year's evening incident as a beat up, wife-beating, and further refers to Mr. Simpson's infidelity, and also indicates at the end of this letter that since that night that she has never loved him since or been the same. And I proffer this as evidence of Nicole's state of mind in regard to the nature of this relationship in the days and time period leading up to the '89 incident and then culminating in their divorce a few years thereafter, and some specific response to Mr. Baker's eliciting from Mr. Simpson that during this same period of time O.J. Simpson and Nicole enjoyed a wonderful, loving relationship. And on page 123 of the transcript of yesterday's testimony, he goes into that and he goes into it, in other places as well, and he conceded at sidebar, Mr. Baker did, that he was attempting to elicit evidence to show Mr. Simpson's state of mind in regard to that relationship, which he thought was relevant, to show that at no time could Mr. Simpson, and would Mr. Simpson, ever have a motive to kill Nicole. And once you accept the proposition, as I do, that that evidence is relevant, and clearly equally relevant is the evidence of Nicole's state of mind in regard to the identical issue, that is their relationship and whether or not it was as he portrayed it or she portrayed it, and whether or not he could and did have a motive to kill sometime thereafter. And under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, I believe this is admissible. The only question is relevance. And relevance has been established by no less than Mr. Baker's own reasoning. You cannot -- You cannot put on half of a story, Your Honor. You cannot elicit testimony from Mr. Simpson about their relationship and then bar us from inquiring about Nicole's portrayal of that same relationship from her own words. I offer to prove those points with the passages that I just described. Also it impeaches his testimony, Your Honor. Remember, he made a big point on the stand of saying at the outset of his testimony that he has never even attempted to lie about anything important.
Well, Mr. Petrocelli, you kind of shotgunned this thing. I think for the purposes of the Court's ruling, I want to ask you to be more specific in terms of what specific item are you -- are you seeking to introduce.
The sentence -- well, first of all, I would seek to introduce the entire document, Your Honor. But in particular, I would seek to introduce on the fourth page, exhibit -- what.
This is Exhibit 732. For the record, Exhibit 732 -- Erin, on page 5, the following paragraph: (Mr. Petrocelli read from Exhibit 732.) There was also that time before Justin and after a few months, Sydney, I felt really good about how I got back into shape. You beat the holy hell out of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off the bike, remember!
I think morally it was dishonest of me, yes. I don't know if I would characterize it as a lie.
It's not the word I would use for it, no. I would say morally it was wrong.
No.