Redirect examination of Cynthia Shahian

📄 Redirect examination of Cynthia Shahian — Monday, February 6, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\6\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-CYNTHI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 13 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Cynthia Shahian Session closing ▶

Witness: Cynthia Shahian
Examiner: Christopher Darden
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, February 6, 1995 • Utterances: 33

Darden conducts a brief redirect of Cynthia Shahian, Nicole Brown Simpson's friend, to establish that the 'change in circumstances' referenced in a June 6, 1994 letter referred to OJ and Nicole's relationship breakdown — not any change involving Lee Roy Taft. Shahian confirms the couple had separated within weeks of Nicole's murder.

# 1 THE COURT:

REDIRECT.

# 2

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

# 3

BY MR. DARDEN:

# 4 Q:

MISS SHAHIAN, DID YOU SEE IN LINE 2 WHERE IT SAYS, "I AM COMPELLED TO PUT YOU ON WRITTEN NOTICE"? SEE THAT PART?

# 5 A:

YES.

# 6 Q:

SEE THE PART ABOVE THAT WHERE IT SAYS, "BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCES"?

# 7 A:

YES.

# 8 Q:

WAS THERE A CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN LEE ROY TAFT AND NICOLE BROWN THAT YOU KNOW OF?

# 9 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE, VAGUE IN NATURE, UNCERTAIN, UNINTELLIGIBLE.

# 10 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 11 MR. DARDEN:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 12 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NICOLE BROWN AND LEE ROY TAFT?

# 13 A:

NO.

# 14 Q:

WAS THERE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN?

# 15 A:

YES.

# 16 Q:

YOU SAW NICOLE BROWN ALMOST EVERY DAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 17 A:

NOT -- NOT EVERY DAY. WE -- AT LEAST -- ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK IN 1994.

# 18 Q:

WHAT WAS THE CHANGE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP, THAT IS THE DEFENDANT'S AND NICOLE'S?

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION, OBJECTION. THIS IS IMPROPER REDIRECT EXAMINATION FURTHER.

# 20 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 21 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE CHANGE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP?

# 22 A:

THE CHANGE WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT TOGETHER AS A COUPLE.

KEY QUOTE

# 23 Q:

AND DID THAT CHANGE OCCUR A FEW WEEKS OF NICOLE BROWN'S DEATH?

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

# 25 THE COURT:

WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE LETTER? I AM SORRY.

# 26 MR. DARDEN:

JUNE 6, 1994, YOUR HONOR.

# 27 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

# 28 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: DID THAT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR WITHIN A FEW WEEKS OF NICOLE'S DEATH?

# 29 A:

YES. YES, IT DID.

# 30 Q:

THANK YOU.

# 31 MR. DARDEN:

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

# 32 THE COURT:

MR. COCHRAN.

# 33 MR. COCHRAN:

I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. SHE MAY BE EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Cynthia Shahian

THE CHANGE WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT TOGETHER AS A COUPLE.

Establishes that the 'change in circumstances' in the letter referred to OJ and Nicole's breakup, directly linking relationship dissolution to the murder timeline.

Cynthia Shahian

YES. YES, IT DID.

Confirms the relationship change occurred within weeks of Nicole's death — Darden's core point connecting motive to timing.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Letter dated June 6, 1994 referencing 'change in circumstances' and written notice to Lee Roy Taft

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Christopher Darden•Cynthia Shahian

Darden walks Shahian through the letter to distinguish the OJ-Nicole relationship change from any Lee Roy Taft-related change, getting clean answers on both counts.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran fires three objections in rapid succession, all overruled; Judge Ito pauses only to confirm the letter's date before overruling the third.

procedural

Objections

3 objections (0 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 4752 • 33 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103