Yes. We would like to use the original verdict form that we submitted. We think it's clear, concise, and basically, allows the jury to follow the instructions and the issues that we have. Mr. Baker is -- he believes that it's inconsistent for the jury to find liability or not to find liability relative in a wrongful death case, and proceed on to the question that relates to battery. In theory, I guess the jury would come back and say there isn't a wrongful death, find for the defense on wrongful death, but still go on to the battery, and have to answer those questions.
Well, in a practical sense it is because, obviously, if they come back with defense on wrongful death, it's unlikely they'll find a battery. There are, none the less, two causes of action; one for wrongful death, one for battery. Our verdict form allows the jury to answer each of those questions separately. That's the basis on which we would like the Court to use our verdict.
Tell me why the defense would not be entitled to a directed verdict if they came back with a no on question No. 1.
Well, you know, they possibly could be entitled to a directed verdict, but it would depend upon the factual determinations that the jury makes. I mean, I agree with the Court that in the very practical sense if they find for the defense on wrongful death it is very unlikely they are going to proceed and find for the plaintiffs on battery. However, there are two separate cases here in the sense that there's a wrongful death case on behalf of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Rufo, and there's a separate survivorship action on behalf of the estate of Ron Goldman. Our verdict form just treats those separately. That's all it asks the jury to do is analyze each of those separately. If they find for defense on one, logically, they'll find for defense on the other.
Okay. I think question No. 1 is determinative of what the jury is going to proceed to your subsequent questions, it would appear to me the proposal of the defense is more logical and less likely to mislead the jury.
You know, when I -- when I ask you to comment, I would like a comment. Don't wait until I make a ruling and then comment.
KEY QUOTEWell, I apologize, Your Honor. The thought is, though, that there are no punitive damages under the law allowable in the wrongful death claim, only in the battery claim as a factual matter, you're not going to separate the battery and wrongful death claims as a legal matter if the jury is only answering a wrongful death claim, then there would be no entitlement to punitive damages.
They -- if there's an answer -- if they find wrongful death, they answer the punitive which gives rise to the punitive.
If they answer no to question No. 1, what point is there in going on to the remainder of the questions? Do you see a point?
Little cooler. Before we left for lunch we were talking about gloves, and I had one final point I wanted to say. (Exhibit is displayed.)
As you can see from this results board, this glove was tested and found to have Mr. Simpson's blood on it -- various locations. Now, that is further absolute proof that this glove could not have been planted, 'cause if this glove was at Bundy, left by another killer, how would it have OJ Simpson's blood on it? The fact that it has OJ Simpson's blood on it, in and of itself shows it could not have been planted. I want to turn to the socks now. Joe, you can take that front board down. Thank you. Just to clarify that last point. Since Mr. Simpson's blood, as I mentioned several times before, wasn't available until later on in the day, until 3:30 in the afternoon on the 13th, there wasn't any blood available to them to put on the glove, to then plant at Bundy. That's what I meant in case I was a little unclear. Now, turning to the socks. These socks were collected off of Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor on the afternoon of June 13, on that Monday, by the criminalists. The socks were tested by the DNA laboratories and found to contain various spatters of blood on them. Nicole Brown Simpson's blood was found on both socks; both of them. OJ Simpson's blood was found on the toe and on the heel of one of the socks. Again, DNA tests confirmed this is Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's blood. What is it doing on his socks? What is Nicole's blood doing on OJ Simpson's socks, ladies and gentlemen? Why is his blood on his socks? And his blood appears on the socks, by the way, in the toe and heal area where you might get blood on if you were taking your socks off with a finger that had some blood coming out of it, a cut finger. The defense expert, John Gerdes, didn't have anything to say about contamination in regard to these socks. There's no evidence at all that that blood could have gotten on there by any theory of contamination. And, of course, Mr. Simpson has zero explanation for why his blood is on his socks and why Nicole's blood is on his socks. Again, absolute evidence of his guilt. Blood of the victim and blood of himself on his socks. Now, in desperation, the defense tries to say, well, that blood was planted, the socks were planted on the floor. Excuse me. And they went and put on the testimony of this videographer, Willie Ford, from the Los Angeles Police Department, to show that there weren't any socks on the rug when he filmed with his video. Well, then we questioned Mr. Ford. And he explained that the socks had already been collected --
Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)
That question was objected to and the Court sustained that objection because there was obviously no foundation that Willie Ford was there before he went in and videotaped.
Mr. Ford testified that by the time he went and videotaped in that room, Your Honor, the collection of the socks and the evidenced occurred already. Mr. Gelblum asked the most questions. (Mr. Gelblum displays computer screen to the Court.) (Court reviews computer screen.)
Keep going. "He just left but he just finished collecting the evidence."
MR. P. BAKER: The objection was sustained.
How does it overcome this question and answer? So the socks weren't in there because they had already been picked up? Answer yes.
Excuse me.
MR. P. BAKER: Says -- this is page 219, it says: (Mr. P. Baker read a portion of the transcript of the testimony of Willie Ford.) "The socks weren't there because they had already been picked up. Objection, calls for speculation argumentative."
You may argue inference from this answer, the objection with regards to -- because the socks were already picked up are you attributing to testimony of Mr. Ford?
Can I quote that answer there, Your Honor, which was prior in time to this answer.
MR. P. BAKER: That's 219.
Yes, I did. Look. He asked it again, and it was when he asked it the third time it was objected to, Your Honor. We have two answers in here, Your Honor, in the record.
You may argue his testimony with regards to Mr. Fung having already been there and collected the evidence, and you may not argue that Mr. Ford testified that Fung had picked up the socks. You may argue the inferences from Mr. Ford's testimony.
Tell me -- But Mr. Ford wasn't there when Mr. Fung picked up the socks. When Mr. Ford went in to film the video, okay.
His understanding that the evidence was already collected. That's what he said.
Okay. And also that his purpose was there to pick -- film after the collection of evidence.
You know, when I -- when I ask you to comment, I would like a comment. Don't wait until I make a ruling and then comment.
What is Nicole's blood doing on OJ Simpson's socks, ladies and gentlemen? Why is his blood on his socks?
The fact that it has OJ Simpson's blood on it, in and of itself shows it could not have been planted.
That portion of Mr. Petrocelli's argument that Mr. Ford said that the socks were picked up, that portion itself is stricken and you're to disregard that.