Simpson's over at the house that night on October 25, 1993, and he just leaves, there's no explosion at that time, nothing, he just walks out of the house. But subsequently, during phone calls that night on October 25, 1993, Nicole leaves the phone off the hook. Mr. Simpson is being ignored by Nicole. So what does he do? He gets in his car, he drives over there, leaves the car in the middle of the street, lights on. He was being ignored. Just like at the recital on June 12, 1994. He was being ignored. Now, the other thing Mr. Simpson told you on the stand, even in the face of that 911 tape from 1993, is that Nicole wasn't frightened. Do you have that tape, Steve. (Audiotape is played.)
That's it, Steve. (Audiotape is halted.) "The kids are upstairs sleeping and I don't want anything to happen." This is a woman who's known this man for 16 years. She's gone from being a child to being a woman with him. She's had two children with him. She spent all of her intimate moments with him. But the one thing that she knows eight months before these murders, children upstairs in the house or no children upstairs in the house, nothing will deter this man, and she knows it's not going to make any difference when he snaps, just like in 1989 when the kids were in the house, whether they're there that night. And she knows it's not even a consideration. And she's frightened. And she tells us that she's frightened later on. And I'm sure Mr. Baker will probably play the rest of the tape where Nicole calms down, but keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the 911 operator tells her to hang on to the phone till the cops get there. That's her umbilical cord. That's her lifeline. And Kato shows up also. Now, one other thing Mr. Petrocelli touched on, also in terms of our ability to try this case, is the fact that the one thing Mr. Baker's been able to do is put his client on the stand and explain things. And we haven't had that opportunity. And he's been able to say, O.J., tell us this, Juice, what about that. And we haven't been able to do that. And one of the really, I think, interesting parts of even being an attorney is learning your client. And, you know, I can talk to Lou and I can talk to Judy and find out what kind of daughter Nicole was. Or I can talk to her sisters and find out what kind of sister she was. Or I can talk to friends and find out what kind of friend she was. And everybody's been able to say what kind of great mother she was. But I don't have Nick. And I'd love to be able to say, Nick, they're saying things about you. Nick, they said that in 1993, when you made that phone call, you weren't frightened. Tell us about that. Or, Nick, they're saying, without you here to respond, that you're running around with hookers, drug users. What do you have to say about that? Or, Nick, they're saying that Mr. Simpson would never have that state of mind, never have that capability to kill you. What do you have to say about that, Nick? Tell the jurors. Now, fortunately in this instance, she can tell you. Steve, can you put up the picture first. (Photo is displayed.)
Bring it up close. Nick (indicating to Elmo screen), my client. First of all, I want her in her own words to tell you people whether she was frightened, whether she was scared, that night of October 25, 1993. Steve, can you play that, please. (Audiotape is played.)
"You're scared of him?" "Yes." What more would you want. She tells you right there, from as close as we can get to her, that she was scared that night. The next thing you heard a lot about, whether it was Mr. Baker in his opening statement or Mr. Simpson with his rambling testimony on the stand, was, in his demented imagination, these things about her running around with hookers, Heidi Fleiss, drug users. Well, Nicole, I want to know what you have to say about that. (Audiotape is played.)
KEY QUOTE"I don't know any of these people, I don't hang around with them, they're not my friends." She's telling you that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and in that tape she's telling you eight months before the murders about those allegations regarding her. The last thing I want to ask my client about is this fact of whether she, in her state of mind, believed that Mr. Simpson was capable of taking her life.
I'll see counsel. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)
It would appear inappropriate to offer her state of mind as to Mr. Simpson's intentions. Sustained.
As to the relationship, Your Honor, this is -- Your Honor, that's why this whole tape was admitted into evidence -- I'm playing one more excerpt.
I'll ask that be stricken and just put it to her state of mind and her state of the relationship, eight months before the relationship --
I believe this tape came in under not the state-of-mind exception, I think this came in as spontaneous statements for the truth of the matter asserted, Your Honor. I don't think this tape came in for state of mind. I'd have to go back and check, but I don't -- I don't think that's the record. I think this came in as -- under another exception to the hearsay rule for the truth of the matter asserted, and I don't think there's a state-of-mind issue here at all.
I don't think that it's relevant for anything, how it came, that it came in, a spontaneous declaration. It's not relevant to her state of mind, then it's not relevant to what happened June 1994. You have an eight-month period.
Her state of mind as to her belief that Simpson's going to kill her, I don't think that's appropriate. I'll sustain the objection.
Your Honor, if I could, one more moment, please. Your Honor, this is a tape that was properly laid in foundation. It's material; it's relevant; it was offered.
Mr. Kelly, that's not the objection. The objection is that you are offering it for an improper purpose. You want to offer it for her state of mind and her fear, that's one thing; but you -- you're offering it to show Simpson's intent.
MR. KELLY: I'll rephrase the question. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)
Ladies and gentlemen, the next thing you will hear is an excerpt from a recording to reflect on what Nicole's state of mind was and her view of the relationship eight months before the murders. Steve? (Audio tape played.)
To will further corroborate what Nicole's state of mind was, to show what her view of the relationship was. I also recall that after her death, it went to her -- they went to her safety deposit box, and in there, they found her writings and photographs of her taken in 1989. And she wanted you to know how she felt and what her view of this relationship was, if people needed to know some day. Once again, as I said, the fact that she felt this way wasn't -- was in spite of, in addition, to the fact that those two children were sleeping upstairs that night too, eight months before the murders. You can take the picture down, Steve. (Mr. Foster complies.)
Now, you heard in November and December, 1993, Mr. Simpson was busy finishing a movie. Then, in December of '93, he went back to New York. And in January, February and March of 1994, he said he was away most of the time, in New York. He said when he was in L.
A., he saw Nicole, but most of the time, he was gone. And I just want to reiterate the fact, in April, again, when he made that phone call to the Browns, and he told them he thought it was going to work, I would suggest that that is when Nicole got cold feet, and what Mr. Simpson describes as erratic behavior was simply Nicole not wanting to talk to him, not wanting to be around him. On the day before Mother's Day, when he drove down there, on May 7 -- and I described the tension in the Brown house. I would suggest it's because he was not wanted down there by Nicole. And that night, when he was supposed to go out with Nicole, and she said she just can't do this, she just can't handle it, she wasn't having a nervous breakdown; she didn't want to be with the man anymore. Simple as that. Mr. Simpson, through his skewed view of the world, the world through O.J. Simpson, saw this as something totally different. He saw this behavior as bizarre, that this woman, who pulled him back into the relationship, didn't want him anymore. And for that last month, Mr. Simpson was like a coiled spring. And they were not talking, and they were not interacting. And try as he may, Mr. Simpson can say that he was ignoring Nicole, but she wasn't sending him those musical tapes; she wasn't coming by with videos. There were no cookies to Rockingham, no pictures of the kids. She wasn't showing up at Riviera Country Club. She wasn't following him down to Palm Springs because she wanted to be with him. And when he came by her house to pick up the dogs or look at computer games or anything that last couple weeks in June, she didn't even come out of her room or come out of the house, and they didn't exchange a word. Don't let him tell you there was no animosity at that time. With regard to the recital, that was covered in some detail by Mr. Petrocelli, I just want to make a couple comments. I'm sure that Mr. Baker is going to play the infamous videotape again. And you know what? He can play it a hundred times to you people. But just keep a couple things in mind: That the tension wasn't between Mr. Simpson and Lou or Mr. Simpson and Judy or Mr. Simpson and Dennis: It was between he and Nicole. And you can play that video all night long, and every time, it's going to have the exact same ending. And that ending is a black Cherokee pulling up and Nicole Simpson not getting out or not saying goodbye, and Sydney not getting out of the car and not saying goodbye, and that car pulls away, and Mr. Simpson is left there, ignored and alone. That's what that video tells you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. And it was the first time Nicole had publicly humiliated him. And Mr. Simpson had flown all the way back from New York, and she had made all the plans, and she had excluded him. She was in charge. And she was happy. And she wanted nothing to do with him. And he knew it. Now, a couple other things just about that night, with regard to the time line, that window of opportunity between 9 o'clock and 10:45. At 9 o'clock, we know that when Mr. Simpson had made a phone call and spoke to Sydney, he was home alone; the housekeeper wasn't coming back to Rockingham. He knew Nicole was home alone. He knew the kids were going to bed. Consider this in the context of what the killer did that night. He put on soft-soled shoes to move quietly -- rare designer soft-soled shoes -- to move quietly that night. He wore a ski cap to avoid identification. He wore rare designer gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints. And he used a knife to so he could kill quietly. But if the killer took all these measures to avoid detection -- shoes, the gloves, the hat, the knife -- why go out in a relatively early hour, at 10:30 at night, when the lights are still on and people are awake? And there's only one reason, ladies and gentlemen, and that's because that killer had a plane to catch that night. And if Ron Goldman had not shown up there when he did, Sydney and Justin would have come down the next morning and found their mother in a pool of blood, and Mr. Simpson was -- when Mr. Simpson was out playing golf. Couple other things we talked about: Length of struggle. I think struggle is one of the biggest misnomers of this case. You heard Nicole received a blow to the brain with such velocity, that a bruise --
A blow to the brain that bruised it. And Ron Goldman, relaxed, unsuspecting, finished with work, off to meet his friends, dropping off glasses, was ambushed in a pitch black area, pitch black. And I won't repeat all the details. You people shouldn't have to listen to them: The knife, the savagery, the rage, the size of the area. It wasn't a struggle; it was a slaughter. And when the police arrived, that first officer on the scene -- and people know it, and I've got to say it again, and you've got to just keep telling yourselves that he saw the same thing that the next 15 police officers saw, also. They saw Mr. Simpson's -- what they saw, his glove. And they saw his size 12 Bruno Magli, Lorenzo-style, Silga-soled footprints leading out there. They saw his blood there. They saw his blood on the back gate and the trace evidence from his clothes, his body, and his Bronco were all there and collected. And don't think about a second glove ever being there or being transported anywhere, because when you hold that knife in your right hand, your gloved right hand, that glove -- that right-hand glove cannot even come off when you're holding the knife. You can lose the left glove; you're not going to lose the right. No detective saw anything after 15 officers had been there. When they headed to Rockingham, they didn't know if there was an eyewitness to the case, whether someone was going to confess to the murders, or Mr. Simpson had been in Europe for a year. I don't want to keep going over the physical evidence. Mr. Petrocelli did a tremendous job on that. The last thing I want to talk about is one of the last questions Mr. Baker asked Mr. Simpson when he was on the stand this last time. And I think the question was, Mr. Simpson, have you ever told anybody that you were responsible for the death of Nicole? And obviously, his answer was no. And had it been yes, I don't think we'd be sitting here right now. But what I want to do is put it in context of this conversation that Mr. Simpson had at the wake with Nicole's brother, [sic] Judy. Now, you -- Judy, you heard, was very close to Nicole, and she understood Mr. Simpson, too. In fact, Mr. Simpson, himself, said she was like a shrink to him, and she was suspicious. As Mr. Simpson said, Judy got in his face, and asked him whether he had anything to do with these murders. Now, Judy didn't know about any of the evidence in this case. She didn't know about hair, fiber, trace evidence, blood, anything. What she did know, the only thing she knew of, was the nature of the relationship. And she asked him if he had anything to do with this. And the one thing Judy wanted to be convinced of was whether this man, who Nicole had dedicated her life to, who was the father of her grandchildren, had not taken her baby from her. And when Mr. Simpson had said, I loved your daughter, Judy, or -- no -- I loved your daughter, Judy, the response in Judy's mind was the same. She wanted to see indignation, outrage, hurt, out of Mr. Simpson. And when she didn't see it, when she didn't hear it --
-- the question was not answered in her mind. And what you people have to do is now answer that question: Did he kill Nicole and did he kill Ron? And you have to look at all of the evidence. And you can't rely on Mr. Simpson's testimony, because he's not to be trusted. And you have to make this man understand -- understand things; that when you do things like -- you hop fences, you hide things in trash cans, or you run from the cops, or you peep in your wife's window late at night, without her knowing, you're a sneak. And when you look at a photograph of you in the killing shoes, and you say it's a fake, you're a liar. And when you are unfaithful to your wife, you're a cheater. And when you kick her, and when you hit her and you pull her hair, you're a batterer. And when you slaughter two people in the primes of their lives, you're a killer. And all Nicole and all Ron are asking you people to do is to assign that responsibility to a man who refuses to accept it. Thank you.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.)
It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to address you in this closing argument. Like my brethren, my colleagues, before me, I'd like to extend the thanks of myself, my client, for yourselves on service on this jury. This is a part of citizenship. You come in, you dedicate yourself to perform functions as a juror. We've watched you. You've been attentive, you've been here every day, and for that we are deeply -- you have our deep gratitude. Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Kelly have talked to you about the evidence. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the law and take you through what's called a special verdict form. Steve, can you put that on the monitor. (Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)
Focus it a little bit. Now, when it's all said and done, when you deliberate the evidence, and talk amongst yourselves, and decide the issues of fact, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, your verdict which you -- what you have say about this case will be contained on this special verdict. And to start with, there are essentially three cases here. There's a wrongful death case that is brought by the parents of Ron; Sharon Rufo, my client, who's Ron's mother, and Mr. Goldman, Ron's father. There are two other cases; they're brought by really the victims themselves, Ron and Nicole. But because they're dead, there has to be a legal entity. That's an estate.
I object. They are not brought by Ron and Nicole. That's a misstatement of the law because --
Can I finish? There has to be an estate in order for an action to be filed, and there are such estates filed in this action; one on behalf of Ronald Goldman, and Mr. Fred Goldman is the administer of that estate, and the estate for Nicole Brown Simpson, and her father, Louis Brown, is the administer for that estate. Now, the wrongful death case basically asks you to find that Mr. Simpson, on June 12, 1994, willfully and wrongfully took the life of Ron Goldman. The estate cases are going to ask you to make a finding that at that very same time, Mr. Simpson committed a battery. Now, Steve, if you could put up the jury instruction on battery. (Jury instructions displayed.)
Now, in a case where two people have been killed, it may seem a little bit odd that you're being asked to make a finding of battery. This is the legal definition, and I'll have these jury instructions -- the judge will read these instructions to you. This is the law that will govern this case. You'll have an opportunity to have these back with you during the jury deliberations. Essentially, what a battery is means the elements the defendant intentionally did an act which resulted in harmful contact with Ron's person. No. 2, Ron did not consent to the contact, and 3, the harmful contact caused injury, damage, loss, or harm to Ron. Just to simplify your analysis, I think the way you ought to approach this case is that the battery -- this legal definition is really what we are talking about -- is that the deaths of Ron and Nicole began with an attack upon their person. That's what the battery is. The process of the attack was the battery. That led to their respective deaths. The death of Ron is the wrongful death action. So if we go back to the special verdict form, Steve, if you would, please. (Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)
First question you've going to answer and this will walk you through all of the questions you that have address in this case. If you could turn the page, please (indicating to Mr. Foster). This is the first question you're going to be presented with after considering all of the evidence and all of the jury instructions. "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the deaths of Ronald Goldman?" Check either yes or no. If you check no, then you'll see -- you will be given instructions with respect to which question you should go on to next. If you check yes, then you go on to the next question. Steve. (Elmo adjusted.)
You go to question No. 2. This is a question that relates to Ron's estate. "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman?" Now, if you answer question No. 1 yes, the logical conclusion is you're going to answer question No. 2 yes, because if he killed them, then certainly he committed the battery that eventually led to their deaths. If you answer yes, which we believe the evidence compels you to do, to 1 and 2, then you're to go to question No. 3. Steve. (Elmo adjusted.)
Question No. 3 is going to ask to you make a finding. "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you have based your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?" Again, you must answer that question yes or no. You must indicate whether you believe, given the facts and the evidence from this case, whether Mr. Simpson, if you find that he killed Ronald Goldman --
I'm going to have to object. I apologize. That's not correct. If they answer question No. 1, they don't answer that question at all, Your Honor, so -- he said you have to answer that question. That's -- he's misrepresenting the law to these people.
I indicated, Your Honor, that if they answered no, they follow the instructions. If they answer yes, they go to 2. If they answer yes, they go to 3.
Thank you, Your Honor. This is a question that you answer yes or no based upon your finding of the evidence. If you answer yes to question 2, proceed to question 4. Okay. Question 4: "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery of Ronald Goldman?" You'll have a separate instruction that will define malice. I'll talk to you about that in a minute. You have to answer this question yes or no. There has to be a finding by you, based upon all of the evidence, whether you believe -- if you find Mr. Simpson is responsible for Ron Goldman's death, whether he acted with malice. Move it up here, Steve, a bit, so we can see the bottom. (Elmo adjusted.)
After you answer question 4, as it tells you right here, you will proceed to question 5. Now, this question relates to Mr. Kelly's client, which is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson. The question you're going to have to answer there is the same question you answered with Mr. Goldman. "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?" You must answer that simply yes or no. If you find that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the death of Ron and Nicole, this is a logical extension of that, you will find that he committed a battery. If your answer -- it tells you right here. If your answer to No. 5 is yes, you proceed to question 6. If your answer to question Nos. 1 and 5 are no, you proceed to date, sign, and return the verdict form. If you answer question 6, you're going to have to make another finding with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson's claim. "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?" Again, it tells you right here, yes or no. But you have to make a specific finding one way or the other if you are answering this question. Scroll up a little bit, Steve. If you answer yes to question 5, you're going to go to question 7. Thank you. You're going to have to answer -- "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?" You must answer this question. You must indicate yes or no. And if you answer yes, question number 1, then you go and answer yes, question number 8, and this will be the last question on the verdict form. And this will ask you to award damages against defendant Simpson in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Ruffo in the aggregate, meaning a lump sum, as follows. And whatever you decide that amount is, you will enter it here. You need not concern yourself with a specific award with respect to the battery claims by both of these estates. You simply have to make sure that you answer the questions if you find liability against Mr. Simpson, against the estates, on the questions that we showed you. Now, if we can go back to question number 1, Steve, for a moment. (Elmo is adjusted.)
You have to make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence, and -- so that's the legal standard, and in this case, the civil case, there's no presumption of innocence for a defendant. This is not a criminal case. We're not held to a criminal burden of proof or a criminal standard. And so what you have to do is, you have to find liability based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Well, what does that mean? You'll have an instruction -- Steve, put that up on the board, please. The instruction you're going to have is that -- it says preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If evidence is so evenly balanced that you're unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it. You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it. That doesn't go a long way to really help. It's a legal definition. Let me give you some terminology that we possibly use every day that you possibly used in this courtroom that will help you sort through the evidentiary issues. Preponderance means the same thing as a probability. Mr. Simpson probably is responsible. He probably did it. Those are the terms that I would use to reflect the preponderance standard. Another way of representing it is, it's more likely than not that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. Numerically expressed, 50.5 or 51 percent. That can reflect preponderance. And if you find yourself saying, well, based upon the evidence, based upon everything we've seen and heard over the past four months, Mr. Simpson probably is responsible for these murders, then we have proved our case, we have proved his responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Now, we went way beyond that in this case. We believe that we proved this case to a certainty without a doubt. We had the choice of how we were going to present the evidence in this case. We could, in our view, have presented a fraction of the evidence, the blood evidence at Bundy, the shoe evidence, the evidence of Mr. Simpson's cuts on his hands that he can't explain, taken independently, in our view, those meet the legal burden that we're obligated to prove to you in order to prevail in this case, and we have gone well beyond that. Now, another legal standard that you're going to be presented with as you read through the special verdict form is clear and convincing evidence. Can you put that up, please? There's two standards, and you're going to see that you're going to have to evaluate preponderance which we just talked about clear and convincing evidence. Now, this is going to appear when you answer questions with respect to whether Mr. Simpson acted with malice and oppression. And it will say in the question itself, "clear and convincing evidence." So what does that mean? How do you as jurors evaluate this evidence? How do you take that legal standard and apply it to the facts of this case. I'll start with the instruction. Clear and convincing evidence means evidence of such convincing force that it demonstrates a contrast to the opposing evidence, a high probability of the truth of the facts for which it is offered as proof. Such evidence requires a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it. The best I can represent this standard is if we start with a criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, up here, and we have a civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, right here, this one falls somewhere in the middle, it falls somewhere between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard. We believe that any of the evidence we presented during the course of this trial taken independently satisfies this standard as well. Taken collectively, all of the evidence you've heard from our side and from the defense over the past four months indicates, without a doubt, to a certainty that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the deaths of two young people, two young people. When you're finished with this verdict form, the special verdict form, you should sign it, your foreperson will sign it, and it will be returned. The last issue that you're going to have to decide when you go through the verdict form -- Steve, if you'll put up the next instruction. (Elmo is adjusted.)
-- is you're going to be asked -- we read through it. What is oppression, what is malice, what does that mean as it's reflected in the special verdict form you're going to have? This is the legal definition of what malice means, oppression means, despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of that person's rights. Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to another or to despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. A person acts with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, which, when he is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, willfully and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. This instruction will help you define and understand what the law means by malice and oppression, and those are questions that you're going to have to answer as you proceed through that special verdict form. This is not a case of an accidental death. By no means was there any accidental or negligent actions here. This is a willful, vicious, deliberate act of murder against two people. If you find that Mr. Simpson is responsible, and if you find that we've met our burden by a preponderance and by clear and convincing evidence that he is responsible, you're going to find that he acted with oppression and malice. The tragic murder, the vicious murder, the brutal murder of two people certainly satisfies any definition imaginable under the law as it relates to these two issues, malice and oppression. Now, I'll say a few words about my client, Ron's mother. 28 years ago, on a warm summer day, in the early morning, Sharon Rufo gave birth to her first child and her only son. On that day, a bond was created between a parent and a child, a mother and a son. That's an unbreakable bond. Many of us who have children can fully understand and appreciate the bond that I'm talking about. And most of us -- certainly, all of us would understand that the bond between the parents and the child is based upon an absolute love for that child. It's based upon unconditional love. And it's a love that my client, Sharon, had for her son from the day of his birth to the day he was killed. Now, my client, Sharon Rufo, will never see Ron Goldman again; she will never talk to him again; she will never have any relationship with him again. Because the case is not really -- it is about what was, and it's also about what will never be. And will never be --
And what will never be is the chance for Ron's mother, both of his parents to ever see, speak to, hug, love, touch, him again. A kiss on the cheek, a hug during the holidays, an "I love you," the comfort of a warm voice, a familiar voice. That's what we look for in family. That's what a parent looks to in a child and a child looks to in a parent. That's the essence of the loss that parents and Mrs. Rufo suffered as a result of the loss of her son. I'd like to read to you, ladies and gentlemen, a poem. In a large garden on the other side of the wall, Stands my son, so very strong and tall, Always so brave and quick to defend, The way you were, I'm sure, to the bitter end. So, son, I want you to listen to what I'm about to say, Because as we all know, we will not have another day. I never saw the grass so green, the sky so peaceful and serene; I never heard the robin's song till the day you came along. I believed we could again come together; And when given the chance, you were taken from me forever. So now I sit and wonder if any of this you comprehend. And if you and I will be given the chance to meet again. I can only hope that one day I see you, To hold and protect you from all that I can. Until then, all this try to understand, Because you will always be my special little man. I looked for a very long time for something to read to you that would have the meaning, so I could convey the feelings of Ron's mother to you. And I found that in her own words. She wrote it for me to read to you. I could not better express the loss that she feels with her son, and these are in the words I just read you, because these are her words. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, you will be given the opportunity to talk about this case among yourselves. And shortly, Mr. Baker will get up here and talk to you, and there may be some rebuttal from our side. And then the case will be entrusted in your hands; it will be given to you, for you to decide. And this is a case, as my colleagues have told you ahead of me, that Mr. Simpson has not and will not take responsibility for his actions. By your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, in this courtroom, you can do what needs to be done; that is, tell O.J. Simpson: Mr. Simpson, you killed two people, sir; you killed two people on June 12, 1994, two young people in the prime of their lives, who had everything to live for. And, sir, they did not deserve to die. We're going to ask you to tell Mr. Simpson that with your verdict. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume at 1:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
THE BAILIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we are still in session. If you are going to remain, please be seated. Quiet, please, until the jury leaves. (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)
I didn't want to make some argument; I wanted to know whether or not we had got another jury instruction. I thought this issue was decided by you yesterday.
I just wanted to know whether or not there was going to be any change, because it may affect my argument. That's all, sir. I don't want to argue at all. We will submit.
Your Honor, the reason I don't feel too bad, the defendants reopened their argument after you had ruled previously on the argument, on the instruction. What I realized, perhaps belatedly but accurately, is that discussion we had yesterday and the basis for your ruling, that you had limited defendant somewhat in talking about the proper procedures, that rationale doesn't apply at all to planting. That's not what -- whether somebody followed proper procedures about picking up evidence or testing evidence, whether they did the right number of swatches collected, dirty evidence. This has to do with deliberate, intentional misconduct. And that argument just doesn't apply to that. We think this accurately states the law. We have revised it, cut it down to its bare bones. I think it clearly, accurately reflects the law. We did -- there are, in fact, specific statutes that prohibit a police officers from filing false reports. That's Penal Code Section 118.1. Preparing false evidence, that's Penal Code Section 134, case of People versus Gordon which expressly says it's not an official duty of a police officer to frame innocent persons by planting evidence. It's clear through an accurate statement of law. And again, it is not affected by the argument. And the discussion and the ruling, I believe Your Honor made yesterday, which was based on your prior ruling limiting the instruction of evidence having to do with whether proper procedures were followed -- that's why we took the time to resubmit it and re-edit it.
I submit I can never remember what I argued yesterday.
(At 11:40 a.m., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997 1:35 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:
When you hop fences, you hide things in trash cans, or you run from the cops, or you peep in your wife's window late at night, without her knowing, you're a sneak. And when you look at a photograph of you in the killing shoes, and you say it's a fake, you're a liar. And when you are unfaithful to your wife, you're a cheater. And when you kick her, and when you hit her and you pull her hair, you're a batterer. And when you slaughter two people in the primes of their lives, you're a killer.
"You're scared of him?" "Yes."
Nick, they're saying that Mr. Simpson would never have that state of mind, never have that capability to kill you. What do you have to say about that, Nick? Tell the jurors.
What he recognized was the only thing that could help him control himself was his possessions. Fear of losing his worldly possessions, part of them, were the only things that he felt could help him control his rage.
Preponderance means the same thing as a probability. Mr. Simpson probably is responsible. He probably did it... Numerically expressed, 50.5 or 51 percent.