Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday you listened to cross-examination regarding a certain exhibit, that was Exhibit 732; a writing that purports to be a letter from Nicole Brown Simpson allegedly directed to defendant Simpson. And it had been the intention of the Court to give you an instruction on that, especially at the conclusion of the trial, but since this has been kind of a long trial and there have been several instances where evidence has been received for a limited purpose, and this is one of those instances where the evidence was received for a limited purpose, I've come to the conclusion that it's best to advise you at this time what the limitation is so that when at the end of the case you get the final instructions, you won't have to search out the particular item that we have referenced to, and if you're making notes you can make notes on it at this time. You're instructed that the letter of Nicole Brown Simpson directed to defendant Simpson, that is Exhibit 732, was received into evidence for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to offer evidence of the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson regarding the relationship between Nicole Brown Simpson and defendant Simpson, and it cannot be considered by you as proof of any truth of any matter that is self-contained or alleged in the letter; in other words, the substance of the letter. The letter cannot be used as evidence to establish anything in the letter, the truth of anything in the letter. It's received only for the purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to offer evidence as to what the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson was with respect to her relationship with Mr. Simpson during that period of time. Everybody understand the limitation? JURORS: Yes, sir.
Your Honor, I just want the record to reflect that we were not given the opportunity to review that instruction just given to the jury before you did read it to the jury and I think that under California law we're required to review all of the instructions before they're given to the jury. No. 2, Exhibit 732 has not been offered into evidence, to my knowledge, it was never offered at conclusion of the plaintiffs' case. No. 3, the Court's characterization of it as a letter, I think, gives it more credence than it's entitled to. I wanted to make those objections.
I would object to it, Your Honor. They only asked for -- they only asked questions about one portion of that letter, and it had -- where Nicole said that she called the cops because she was afraid for her life. And it seems to me that we would do away with most of the problems with that letter if they want to put that portion of it in and redact all the rest, because that's the only portion that got before the jury; that's one thing, but to put that entire letter in when Mr. Simpson was not asked about it, and then not given a chance to explain anything about it, would be, in my view, improper.
Well, No. 1, the reason the Court has addressed the jury with regards to this matter is that it was being received for a limited purpose. To not advise the jury as to this limited purpose would be prejudicial to the defendant, and to wait until the end would be doubly hard on the jury. So I'm doing it for the convenience of the jury. With regard to formal instructions, I invite you to offer formal instructions. This is simply a limiting advisement to the jury for the purpose for which it was received. No. 2, I agree with counsel that only a portion of it was referred to in the examination and I think it is objectionable with regards to the rest of the letter.
The portions that I'm interested in are the ones I read out loud in oral argument.
No. In the argument before the -- the witness took the witness stand you asked me what I wanted to --
-- use in the letter, what I wanted to seek to offer. I read you the portions, and those limited portions are what I'm offering into evidence.
Then you offer the redacted version of it. Let Mr. Baker take a look at it to raise his further objection to it.
He -- he says to you that the areas he wants to go into, that's what you ruled upon. Then when Mr. Simpson gets on the stand he doesn't ask him about those areas at all, so Mr. Simpson doesn't explain those areas. He asked him about one area and that was the area relative to the note that just suggested -- where Nicole said she was essentially afraid for her life, that's why she called the police on January 1, 1989. To now say he can put in evidence other portions of that letter that were before -- Mr. Simpson was never interrogated about seems to me to be absolutely improper.
Well, Mr. Petrocelli can offer that in his rebuttal. You can call Mr. Simpson back at this time to rebut those items. The question is what is admissible as evidence when he offers it. At this point perhaps the Court should not receive it into evidence, so I won't receive it into evidence until your rebuttal and then --
With regards to advising the jury that it is an exhibit, if you want I'll tell them it's not received until I actually receive it, if it makes you feel any better.
And that it's a writing, No. 2, and No. 3, that there's no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever received this from her.
MR. PETROCELLI: Didn't say he did. That's argument at this point. (The following proceedings were held in open court In the presence of the jury.)
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit No. 732 is not formally received as yet into evidence. It has been referred to in the evidence, so you're to consider the limitation to the portion thus far received, and if and when the document itself is received, then at the end of trial the Court's going to read to you the same or similar instruction with regards to it. Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Donald Thompson back. DONALD THOMPSON, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, was previously duly sworn and testified further as follows:
Sir, you have been sworn previously. Would you state your name again for the record.
The letter cannot be used as evidence to establish anything in the letter, the truth of anything in the letter. It's received only for the purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to offer evidence as to what the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson was with respect to her relationship with Mr. Simpson during that period of time.
He asked him about one area and that was the area relative to the note that just suggested -- where Nicole said she was essentially afraid for her life, that's why she called the police on January 1, 1989. To now say he can put in evidence other portions of that letter that were before -- Mr. Simpson was never interrogated about seems to me to be absolutely improper.
Exhibit No. 732 is not formally received as yet into evidence. It has been referred to in the evidence, so you're to consider the limitation to the portion thus far received, and if and when the document itself is received, then at the end of trial the Court's going to read to you the same or similar instruction with regards to it.