This guy is in the witness protection program, and we're going to object to his testimony, but not on this ground.
KEY QUOTEOkay. The Court, at this time, will make its rulings on the objections filed by plaintiff on December 12, 1996, with regards to the video deposition of Henry Lee. The Court has heretofore proceeded to make rulings prior to the December adjournment and had gone up to page 31 -- 33, page 33, line 19. The Court's rulings on the objections are based upon the written objection and grounds stated in the plaintiffs' motion which I have referred to as the one filed December 12, 1996, and the Court incorporates into its rulings today without further repetition and incorporates by reference in the grounds for the objections stated in the written objections. The Court also has considered the argument of counsel made yesterday in support of the objection and in support of opposition to the objections. The Court has gone through the transcript of Dr. Henry Lee, two volumes taken September 7 and 8, 1996; there are approximately 388 pages. The Court is disappointed in the fact that counsel was not able to work out these differences as counsel had indicated they would. So the Court has had to go through these yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening. The Court's rulings are as follows: I will read the page number -- I'm sorry, the page number and line number and indicate that the objection is either sustained which means that it will be excised and excluded from the videotape, or overruled in which case it will be permitted to be shown to the jury. Starting with lines -- page 34, line 10 through 17, sustained. Page 34, 22 to 35, page 35, line 12, sustained, except that page 35 line 7 through line 18 the objection is overruled. Page 35, line 15 through line 19, sustained, remainder is overruled to page 36, line 6. Page 36, line 10 through line 20, sustained. I think for simplicity in as much as the written objections are in the form of a first number, for example, 37, indicating page, colon O2, indicating the line, I'm going to read it in that fashion so that counsel have the written objections before them and will be aware of the Court's ruling. 37:02, sustained. 37:08 to 37:19, sustained. 39 -- I'm sorry 37:20 to 39:06, overruled. 39:10 to 39:12, overruled. 39:18 to 41:12, overruled. 41:17 through 43:13, overruled. 43:18 through 44:11, overruled. 44:18 through 45:13, overruled. 45:16 through 46:13, overruled. 51:15 through 54:06, overruled. 54:13 to 55:10, overruled. 56:22, overruled. 58:03 through 58:05, sustained. 58:08 through 58:15, sustained. 58:21 through 59:11, sustained. 59:14 through 60:09, sustained. 60:12 through 60:18, sustained. 60:19 through 60:20, overruled. 60:25 through 61:03, sustained. 61:06 through 61:11, sustained. 61:15 through 61:21, sustained. 61:24 through 67:12, overruled. 67:15 through 68:18, overruled. 69:01 through 70:18, overruled. 70:24 through 71:13, sustained. 71:17 through 72:07, sustained. 72:12 through 73:11, sustained. 73:21 through 74:08, overruled. 74:09 through 74:14, sustained. 74:17 through 75:05, sustained. 82:10 to -- through 82:25, overruled. 83:03 through 83:08, sustained. 83:11 through 95:5 -- 05, sustained. 95:14 through 100:19, overruled. 102:12 through 106:02, overruled. 106:15 through 106:25, overruled. 108:21 through 109:07, overruled. 109:09 through 109:10, overruled. 109:13 through 110:03, sustained. 110:14 through 111:01, overruled. 111:02 through 111:08, sustained. 111:11 through 111:12, sustained. 111:13 through 112:01, overruled. 112:20 through 115:08, overruled. 115:11 through 117:14, overruled. 117:17 through 117:19, sustained. 117:21 through 117:23, sustained. 117:24 through 118:07, overruled. 118:12 through 119:23, overruled. 119:24 through 120:19, sustained. 120:20 through 121:19, overruled. 121:21 through 124:19, overruled. 125:04 through 127:12, overruled. 127:13 through 127:20, sustained. 127:24 through 129:12, objection was withdrawn.
Withdrawn as to violate stipulation, Your Honor, but as not to the motion in limine.
127:24 through 129:12, sustained. 129:15 through 130:20, objection withdrawn. 130:23 through 131:01, overruled, Sustained as to 131:02 through 131:04. And overruled as to 131:05 through 132:16. Overruled as to --let's see, 132:19 through 133:06, overruled. Sustained as to 133:07 through 133:16. 133:17 through 133:18, overruled. 134:22 through 136:21, overruled. 138:04 through 138:21, withdrawn.
Okay. 136:24 through 137:24, withdrawn. 140:20 through 141:15, overruled. 141:16 through 142:04, sustained. 142:07 through 142:12, sustained. 144:01 through 144:15, sustained. Remainder of line -- Of that portion between 142:13 through 143:25 and 144:16 through 146:23 are overruled. 147:01 through 148:07, overruled. 148:10 through 149:03 are overruled. 149:06 through 149:08, overruled. 149:11 through 149:16, overruled. 149:17 through 150:22, sustained. 150:25 through 151:09, sustained. 151:13 sustained. 151:14 through 153:07, sustained. 153:10 through 154:01, overruled. 154:05 through 154:07, sustained. 154:11 through 155:07, sustained. 156:16 through 157:06, overruled. 157:10 through 157:14, overruled. 157:15 overruled. 157:18 through 157:20, overruled. 157:22 overruled. 157:25 through 158:05, overruled. 158:08 through 158:22, overruled. 159:01 through 159:08, overruled. 159:13 through 160:23, overruled. 160:24 through 161:05, sustained. 161:08 through 161:16, sustained. 164:21 through 166:15, overruled. 166:18 through -- I'm sorry, 166:18 through 171:01, overruled. 171:06 through 175:08, overruled. 175:16 through 178:09, sustained. 178:15 through 179:09, sustained. 179:16 through 180:22, sustained. 181:09 through 183:04, sustained. 183:07 through 184:17, overruled. 184:18 through 184:20, sustained. 184:21 through 185:23, overruled. 187:04 through 187:22, overruled. 187 -- 187:25 through 189:01, overruled. 189:03 through 189:06, overruled. 189:09 through 189:22, overruled. 189:23 sustained. 190:02 through 190:04, sustained. 190:07 through 190:21, overruled. 190:24 through 190:25, sustained. 191:02 through 192:06, sustained. 192:09 through 192:22, sustained. 192:25 through 193:03, overruled. 193:05 through 193:16, overruled. 193:22 through 194:06, overruled. 194:07 through 194:11, sustained. 194:13 sustained. 194:16 through 194:18, sustained. 194:20 through 194:21, sustained. 194:22 through 195:24 through 196:02, sustained. 196:01 through 196:06, sustained. 196:07 through 198:15, overruled. 198:18 through 203:23, overruled. 204:12 through 209:17, overruled. 209:20 through 210:24, overruled. 211:02 through 211:12, overruled. 211:15 through 212:09, overruled. 212:15 through 214:04, sustained. 214:08 through 214:11, sustained. 214:14 through 215:09, sustained. This next one I don't quite understand the pagination of the objection. It would appear to me if there was going to be an objection it ought to run from 354 through 357:18.
Well, the objection as posed runs from 356:01 through 357:18 which looks like a non sequitur on this is it starts as page 354, I don't understand the objection.
Just omit it. We will withdraw the objection on line 6 of page 8, okay. The objection is to lines 1 through 19 on page 356, and I think that's an error there because it's in relation to Mr. Medvene's cross-examination.
Okay. Here's the explanation, Your Honor. Because of the direct exam on the new work which I believe Your Honor has excluded on lines 1 through 19 on page 356, that's the cross on that point, so that would come out as well, that's why it's in there.
We don't have any objection to page 354. I don't see it on here. They didn't designate that part of the transcript to be played, so therefore --
So that's not included. All right. So what are you asking for a ruling on? On your line 6 of page 8?
One second. We want to make -- are you intending there to designate our -- you've designated 19 lines of our cross-examination or so.
MR. P. BAKER: We're not going to play any of your cross.
Okay. So based on that representation we're omitting the objection to their designation that appears on line 6, page 8.
358, line 19 through -- 358:19 through 358:24, sustained. 359:03 through 359:07, sustained. 359:10 through 359:15, sustained. 359:18 through 359:23, sustained. 360:01 through 360:05, sustained. 360:13 through 360:18, sustained. 361:04 through 361:14, sustained. 361:18 through 361:22, sustained. 362:19 through 363:05, overruled. 363:10 through 363:23, overruled. 364:02 through 364:09, sustained. 364:16 through 366:02, sustained. 366:04 sustained. 366:07 through 366:17, sustained. 366:21 through 367:14, sustained except as to 367:04 through 367:10, that's overruled. 367:20 through 367:22, that's overruled. 367:23 through 368:03, sustained. 368:06 through 369:07, sustained. 369:10 sustained. 372:01 through 372:06, overruled. 374:24 through 375:11, overruled. 375:22 through 376:11, sustained. 376:15 through 376:19, sustained. 376:21 through 377:21, sustained. 377:25 through 378:14, sustained. 378:17 through 379:14, sustained. 379:18 through 379:22, sustained. 379:25 through 380:05, sustained. 380:08 through 381:01, sustained. 384:20 through 385:03, overruled. 385:08 through 385:14, overruled. 385:17 through 385:18, overruled. 385:20 through 385:25, sustained. 386:03 through 386:06, sustained. 387:03 through 387:07, sustained. And 387:10 through 387:25, sustained.
Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, very briefly, the next witness is Kato Kaelin, and I have a couple of issues I want to take up with the Court. First of all, I want to reiterate that the Court permitted Mr. Baker to, in effect, take this witness out of order when I examined him, and Mr. Baker was permitted to go way, way beyond the scope of the cross, on the representation that he wouldn't have to come back again. And I just would like to make sure that we're not going over the same ground again. Secondly, Mr. Baker has indicated to me in prior conversations, that one of the topics of examination might involve television appearances by Mr. Kaelin following his civil trial testimony. And as the Court will recall, in connection with the prior examination of Dr. Baden, we were not permitted to play any of those tapes unless there was a foundation for it, for a particular, for example, inconsistent statement that was made, or something to that effect. I've asked Mr. Baker before Your Honor took the bench whether he intended to play any of the tapes, and he would not disclose that to me. So I just want to make sure that if the defense intends to play any of these TV tapes, that we have an opportunity to be heard with regard to the relevance and an offer of proof. And lastly, Your Honor, on the issue that came up yesterday when Mr. Tippin was on the stand and he was shown a police report that he had prepared -- of handwritten notes, I should say, that had reference to alleged drug use, and I suspect that Mr. Baker may question Mr. Kaelin about any alleged drug use by Nicole Brown Simpson. And we objected to that yesterday, but the police report was admitted. I submit, Your Honor, that there's absolutely no relevance at all in regard to any issue of drug use by Nicole Brown Simpson. First of all, there's no proof of it. And secondly, even if it could be established, under the case of People versus Kaurish, there has to be some direct link-up, either directly or through circumstantial evidence, that had anything to do with her murder. And just throwing out that somebody does drugs doesn't do it. The Court, in that case, in fact, went even farther and said mere evidence of motive or mere evidence of opportunity is not enough. If you're trying to suggest drug use because you want to paint the picture that a person is involved with unsavory characters, therefore, there's a third party out there who might have killed her, you've got to have more than that; you've got to have some direct evidence or some circumstantial evidence linking any drug use to her death. And there were other motions in limine that were made in which the Court, for example, excluded any reference of Faye Resnick's drug use on this issue. So I would ask that the witness not be questioned in regard to that issue, Your Honor.
Your Honor, the plaintiffs have tried to paint the picture that Mrs. Simpson -- Ms. Simpson was not pursuing Mr. Simpson, and that that's why he was enraged. We have suggested that the evidence will show that her behavior was erratic. And my understanding is that this goes not only to the erratic behavior that she exhibited in April, May, and the early part of June of 1994, but it also goes to the -- the cross-examination that the plaintiffs put on, their own witness, in effect, as Tippin was an employee of theirs, that they -- that he never said -- that is, Kaelin never said that Nicole Brown Simpson was the person who was the drug -- using drugs and listed in the Tippin report, Exhibit 2190.
Okay. The Court will preclude examination of Kaelin with regards to drug use.
KEY QUOTEIn regard to the television tapes, can we have some advance notification before a tape is played in front of the jury?
Just have a seat. You've been previously sworn. You are still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record.
Brian Kaelin. BRIAN KAELIN, called as a witness by the Defendants, having been previously duly sworn by the Clerk, testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
This guy is in the witness protection program, and we're going to object to his testimony, but not on this ground.
The Court is disappointed in the fact that counsel was not able to work out these differences as counsel had indicated they would. So the Court has had to go through these yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening.
I submit, Your Honor, that there's absolutely no relevance at all in regard to any issue of drug use by Nicole Brown Simpson. First of all, there's no proof of it. And secondly, even if it could be established, under the case of People versus Kaurish, there has to be some direct link-up, either directly or through circumstantial evidence, that had anything to do with her murder.
The Court will preclude examination of Kaelin with regards to drug use.