BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. UELMEN, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MR. GORDON, MS. BODIN AND MR. GOLDBERG. THE MATTER IS HERE FOR CONTINUING MOTION, IN LIMINE PROCEEDINGS. AND, MR. GORDON, YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET UP YOUR GRAPHICS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT?
THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING, IN MR. UELMEN'S COMMENTS, HE KEPT REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A MURDER CASE, THAT THESE INSTANCES WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND WILL DISCUSS TODAY BEAR NO RELEVANCE, HAVE NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER. THE POINT THAT IS BEING MISSED AND WHAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THIS CASE AND IN ALL CASES OF SPOUSAL ABUSE AND SPOUSAL HOMICIDE IS THAT THE EVENTS THAT TAKE PLACE THAT LEAD UP TO THAT HOMICIDE ARE COMPLETELY TOTALLY WELDED AND LINKED TO THAT TERMINAL ACT. THE DEFENSE IS RIGHT, THIS IS A MURDER CASE. WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS IS THAT WHAT MUST BE RECOGNIZED IS THAT THIS MURDER TOOK 17 YEARS TO COMMIT. IN A HOUSEHOLD -- IN ANY HOME OR HOUSEHOLD IN WHICH VIOLENCE BECOMES PART OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, THOSE PUNCHES, SLAPS, THAT PUSHING IS A PRELUDE TO A HOMICIDE. THAT HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED. IT IS DOCUMENTED. IT HAS BEEN EMPIRICALLY RESEARCHED, AND WE'LL DEMONSTRATE THAT. THE PATTERN OF ABUSE AND CONTROL WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS TEXTBOOK. IT MIRRORS AND ILLUSTRATES WHAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED OVER THE YEARS STARTING WITH DR. WALKER, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT, THE DEFENSE HAS TALKED ABOUT AND HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED IN THE YEAR SINCE HER INITIAL RESEARCH. THE DEFENSE KEEPS -- CHARACTERIZES THIS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR HISTORY OF ABUSE AS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. THIS IS TRANSACTIONAL EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT'S WHAT ZACK TALKS ABOUT. AND WE WILL EXPLAIN LATER HOW IT WORKS. THIS EVIDENCE IS PART OF THIS TRANSACTION. IT CERTAINLY HAS RELEVANCE, AND IN THERE CERTAINLY ARE THEORIES OF ADMISSIBILITY UNDER TRADITIONAL 1101(B) ANALYSIS. BUT BEFORE YOU GET THERE, IT HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PATTERN IN A -- PATTERN OF ABUSE THAT LEADS UP TO THE DEATH OF A SPOUSE, DEATH OF AN INTIMATE CAN NOT BE TORN AWAY OR BROKEN AWAY FROM THAT TERMINAL ACT OF ABUSE PER HER DEATH, HER MURDER. THE DEFENSE HAS STATED THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP IN ANY OF THESE ACTS, IN ANY OF THESE ACTS OF ABUSE, THE DEATH ACCOMPLISHED AGAINST HIS WIFE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT AND A HOMICIDE. THIS MORNING, MR. UELMEN ARGUED THAT THERE ARE NO CHARACTERISTICS -- THAT THE MURDER THAT WE HAD OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN WAS NOT A TYPICAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MURDER. THOSE ARGUMENTS THIS MORNING WERE ANALOGIZED TO A DRUG SCENE MURDER. THERE WAS NO DATA OFFERED WHATSOEVER WITH THAT, AND IN FACT IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY CONCERNING ABOUT ANY CASE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHETHER IT'S AT THE INITIAL STAGES WITH AN ASSAULT UP TO A HOMICIDE, IS THAT THERE ARE MANY MISCONCEPTIONS WITHIN THE PUBLIC ABOUT SPOUSAL ABUSE. SPOUSAL ABUSE IS A CRIME, SOMETHING THAT OCCURS WITHIN SECRET, WITHIN THE SHADOWS. IT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT'S BROUGHT OUT INTO THE LIGHT. AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE TODAY ARE EXACTLY, EXACTLY THE MISCONCEPTIONS WHICH HAVE LED TO THE NEED FOR TESTIMONY, EXPERT TESTIMONY. THERE'S LITERATURE THAT'S COME UP TO MINIMIZE INCIDENTS, TO ARGUE THAT ABUSE IS NOT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, TO ARGUE THAT BOTH PARTIES WERE JUST DRINKING, THEY WERE JUST WRESTLING, ALL IT WAS WAS PHYSICAL DAMAGE WHEN SOMEONE IS SITTING INSIDE A CAR AND HAS HER HUSBAND, AN EX-PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER HITTING THAT CAR WITH A BASEBALL BAT, WORRYING ABOUT THE WINDSHIELD, HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST. THOSE KINDS OF TRADITIONAL SITUATIONS OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE, THAT KIND OF -- THE VICTIM BLAMING THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR ON THE PUBLIC'S MISCONCEPTIONS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, EXACTLY THE PROBLEM IN MANY CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WITH REGARD TO THE SIMILARITIES THAT COUNSEL HAS ASKED FOR, WHAT A TRADITIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE LOOKS LIKE, THAT HAS BEEN STUDIED. ONE LENGTHY STUDY WAS DONE IN ONTARIO IN 1992 AS PREPARED FOR THE ONTARIO WOMEN'S AUXILIARY. IT WAS A STUDY IN WHICH ALL WOMEN KILLED BETWEEN 1974 AND 1990 IN ONTARIO, CANADA CASES WERE DIRECT RESULTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND THE STUDIES I AM GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT HAVE BEEN REPLICATED AND DUPLICATED FROM NUMEROUS OTHER STUDIES; SOME ARE UNITED STATES STUDIES, SOME ARE CANADIAN STUDIES AND SOME ARE AUSTRALIAN STUDIES. IN FACT, THE SAMPLING, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE STUDIES, WHICH FIND IDENTICAL RESULTS, IS UP TO AROUND 3,000 SPOUSAL ASSAULTS THAT HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT. IT'S VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT DATA. WHAT THE STUDIES SHOW IS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPOUSAL HOMICIDE, AND THEY'RE ILLUSTRATED ON THE CHART WE PRESENT. FIRST OF ALL, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT WOMEN THAT ARE KILLED, THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE KILLED BY INTIMATES. AND BY INTIMATES, I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT PRIOR EMOTIONAL RELATIONSHIP IN THEIR LIFE, HUSBAND, BOYFRIEND, EX-BOYFRIEND, THAT PRIMARY LOVE RELATIONSHIP. IN FACT, IN THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN ONTARIO, SOME 61 PERCENT OF ALL THE WOMEN KILLED IN THOSE YEARS WERE IN FACT KILLED BY AN INTIMATE. AND SPOUSAL KILLING IS A CRIME THAT AFFECTS WOMEN. 75 PERCENT OF ALL SPOUSAL KILLINGS IN THAT TIME, THREE-QUARTERS OF THEM, THE WOMAN WAS THE VICTIM. IN FACT, WHEN LOOKING AT ALL HOMICIDES, AT ALL -- BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HOMICIDES AS VICTIMS WHEN I'M SAYING THAT -- OF ALL MEN THAT WERE KILLED IN THAT TIME, EIGHT PERCENT OF THE MEN WERE KILLED BY THEIR SPOUSES. YET, 50 PERCENT OF WOMEN THAT WERE KILLED WERE KILLED BY SPOUSES. THAT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, BUT ACTUALLY BY SPOUSES. 64 PERCENT OF THE WOMEN WHO WERE VICTIMS OF INTIMATE HOMICIDE WERE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20 AND 39. SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAME OUT BEAR STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO THE CASE WE HAVE HERE. JUST WHAT MAKES IT SUCH A TYPICAL SPOUSAL KILLING? COUNSEL HAD ASKED FOR WHAT THOSE SIMILARITIES ARE. IN THE CASES STUDIED, 90 PERCENT OF THE WOMEN HAVE REPORTED PRIOR ACTS OF ABUSE BY THE OFFENDER. IN 83 PERCENT OF THE CASES, THE OFFENDER HAD MADE THREATS TO THE VICTIM. IN 65 PERCENT OF THOSE CASES, THERE HAD BEEN PRIOR POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN THOSE CASES, JUST LIKE IN THIS CASE. IN THOSE CASES -- WHEN IT WAS STUDIED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LOOKED AT THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY WAS MOTIVE. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SPOUSAL KILLING, ONE MOTIVE DOES STAND CLEAR; AND THAT IS ESTRANGEMENT. ESTRANGEMENT. CONTROL IS AT THE HEART OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE BEHAVIOR AND ABUSES THAT A BATTERER PUTS FORTH ON HIS VICTIM AND WHEN -- HERE'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT SIMILARITIES OF ONE DESIGN AND ONE INTENT. THEY ARE MECHANISMS OF CONTROL. THEY ARE MECHANISMS TO KEEP THIS WOMAN WITHIN HIS POWER. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENT ACTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO ONE ANOTHER. IN 45 PERCENT OF THE CASES WHICH WERE REPORTED, ALMOST HALF, ONE MOTIVE EXISTED; AND THAT WAS ESTRANGEMENT. THE SECOND LEADING MOTIVE, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL 15 PERCENT OF THE CASES, WAS THE OFFENDER SUSPICION, THAT SOME OTHER MAN WAS INVOLVED WITH THE WOMAN. THE NOTION OF JEALOUSY AND ESTRANGEMENT ARE TWO THINGS THAT ARE VERY, VERY STRONG HERE, THAT REOCCUR HERE, THAT WERE DYNAMICS IN PART OF THIS RELATIONSHIP EVEN BEFORE THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE MARRIED UNTIL THE DAY THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON DIED. MOST OF THE OFFENDERS STUDIED HERE ATTACKED THEIR VICTIMS IN CLOSE PHYSICAL CONTACT. IN ALMOST 60 PERCENT OF THE CASES, THE OFFENDER STABBED, BLUDGEONED, STRANGLED, STABBED OR SLASHED THE THROATS OF THEIR VICTIMS. AND OF THIS FACIAL ASSAULT INVOLVEMENT THEME OR EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE, MOST ARE GRUESOME CRIME SCENES, A LOT OF VIOLENCE. IN FACT, IT WAS NOTED THAT MANY OF THE KILLINGS, THE OFFENDERS INFLICTED HARM WAY BEYOND NECESSARY TO KILL THE VICTIM. AND THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE REPORT. FOR EXAMPLE, MORE THAN HALF THE STABBINGS INVOLVED MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS; IN MANY CASES, DOZENS OF WOUNDS OVER THE ENTIRE BODY. IN FACT, IT WAS NOTED IN THE REPORT THAT MANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AND CORONERS THAT HAVE WORKED WITH THE CASES AND DONE THE AUTOPSIES COMMENTED THAT THESE WERE SOME OF THE MOST GRUESOME CRIME SCENES THEY HAD EVER ENCOUNTERED. 18 PERCENT OF THESE SPOUSAL KILLINGS OCCURRED AT OR NEAR THE VICTIM'S HOME. THIS REPORT FOUND THAT WOMEN THAT ARE ESTRANGED, RECENTLY ESTRANGED FROM THEIR SPOUSES, SPOUSES IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS ARE FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS THAN ANY OTHER REASON. IN FACT, THE REPORT WENT ON TO PROFILE A CERTAIN SET OF WOMEN, CERTAIN POPULATION OF WOMEN THAT ARE MOST AT RISK FOR SPOUSAL KILLING. SOME OF THE FACTORS THEY IDENTIFIED WERE WOMEN WHO HAD BEEN RECENTLY ESTRANGED OR SEPARATED FROM THEIR PARTNERS, AGE, BETWEEN 30 TO 44, WHO HAD NOT WORKED OUT OF HOME IN RECENT YEARS AND CENTERED THE MAJORITY OF THEIR LIFE WITHIN THEIR HOME. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY THAT MS. BODIN WILL TALK ABOUT ECHOED HER FEARS, ECHOED THE FEARS THAT SHE WOULD BE KILLED BY THE DEFENDANT. IN FACT, SHE CHRONICLED HER ABUSE AND LEFT A TRAIL. IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ECHO THAT SHOULD BE IGNORED. DEFENSE WANTS OTHER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPOUSAL ABUSE AND KILLING. IN 1993, THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ARTICLE BY DR. KELLERMAN SAID THAT THE DATA THAT WAS STUDIED THERE STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT THE RISK OF HOMICIDE IS MARKEDLY INCREASED IN HOMES WHERE A PERSON HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN HIT OR HURT IN A FAMILY FIGHT. IN FACT, IT WENT ON TO ADVISE PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INTERVENTION IS HOMICIDE PREVENTION. IN THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS WE'LL BE TALKING TODAY -- TALKING ABOUT TODAY, THE DEFENSE HAS ARGUED THAT TO ALLOW THIS EVIDENCE IN WOULD BE CARVING OUT SOME SPECIAL RULE. THIS IS NOT THE FACT. THE FACT IS THAT THE LAW SAYS THAT EVIDENCE WITHIN RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE CASES, THIS NOTION OF TRANSACTIONAL EVIDENCE DOES IN FACT COME IN. MR. GOLDBERG WILL DISCUSS PRESENT LAW NOT ONLY RELATING TO STALKING, BUT CASES THAT GO BACK TO 1909 AND A LONG LINE OF CASES THAT STAND FOR THIS CRIME. IF ANY SPECIAL RULE WILL BE CARVED OUT TODAY, THAT WILL BE A RULE WHICH WOULD BE TO EXCLUDE THIS EVIDENCE, A RULE WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PATTERN OF ABUSE SUFFERED BY THIS VICTIM, A RULE WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN VOICED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THIS STATE AND STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS THAT ISSUES WITH REGARD TO BATTERED WOMEN, WITH REGARD TO SPOUSAL ABUSE SHOULD COME INTO THE LIGHT OF DAY. IN OUR ARGUMENT TODAY, WE BROKE UP -- AND FOR THE COURT'S INFORMATION, MS. BODIN WILL GO THROUGH AND PRESENT THE FACTS AS WE PERCEIVE THE FACTS HERE, EXPLAIN HOW THEY FIT INTO A PATTERN, DESCRIBE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE FOR THE COURT. SHE WILL ALSO ADDRESS HEARSAY OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE COURT HAD SOME QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF ABUSE, AND I WILL BE RESPONDING TO THAT SHORTLY. MR. UELMEN ARGUED THAT ABUSE MEANS ONLY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE WITHIN THE NOTION OF FAMILY CODE SECTION 6203. AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT WHERE THESE TERMS COME FROM AND WHAT THEY ARE BEING USED FOR. THE TERM "ABUSE" WITHIN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS USED FOR A VARIETY OF CONTROLLED MECHANISMS AND BEHAVIORS. THE KIND OF ABUSE WHICH CONSTITUTES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS INTIMIDATION, VERBAL ABUSE AS IN CONTROLLING A PERSON. WE HEARD EARLIER ABOUT VERBAL ABUSE, AND IT WAS JUST AN ARGUMENT OF THE KIND OF MITIGATING FACTS. THE KIND OF VERBAL ABUSE AND INTIMIDATION THAT WE SEE WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS BELITTLING THE VICTIM, CALLING HER NAMES, RUNNING HER DOWN. THE INCIDENTS THAT WE WILL BE HEARING ABOUT IN THIS CASE, TELLING HER SHE IS A BIG FAT PIG IN PUBLIC, GRABBING HER CROTCH, SAYING, "THIS IS MINE. THIS IS WHERE MY CHILDREN COME FROM," THAT IS HUMILIATION, THAT IS CONTROL MECHANISMS, THAT IS VERBAL ABUSE, USING EMOTIONAL ABUSE. "EMOTIONAL ABUSE" IS A TERM THAT IS RECOGNIZED IN THE LITERATURE THAT STARTED WITH LENORE WALKER AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE MAINSTREAM OF THE LITERATURE, EMOTIONAL ABUSE BEING CONTROL OF THE WOMAN THROUGH PUTTING HER DOWN, TELLING HER SHE'S CRAZY, MITIGATING WHAT OCCURS WITHIN THE HOME, INCONSISTENT BEHAVIORS, THE KIND OF EXPLOSIVE RAGE WITH NO PATTERN. THAT'S EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND IT'S PART OF THE CONTROL CYCLE. ISOLATION; CUTTING A WOMAN OFF FROM HER SUPPORT SYSTEMS, SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT ANYONE NEEDS WITHIN THE WORLD, LIMITING HER FRIENDS WHO SHE CAN SEE, WHO SHE CAN TALK TO, WHAT CLOTHES SHE CAN WEAR, CAN SHE WORK OUT OF THE HOME, JUST THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN THIS CASE. MINIMIZING -- DENYING, MINIMIZING THE VIOLENCE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS CASE. IT IS SOMETHING WHICH IS CLASSIC WITHIN AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, FOR THE BATTERER TO MINIMIZE WHAT HAS OCCURRED. "IT'S JUST A FAMILY PROBLEM. IT WAS NO BIG THING. WE WERE JUST ARGUING. WE WERE WRESTLING. WE HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK AND IT JUST KIND OF GOT OUT OF HAND," SAME KIND OF ARGUMENTS WE HEARD TO -- EXACTLY THE KIND OF BEHAVIORS THAT A BATTERER EXISTS. USING CHILDREN, THREATENING TO TAKE AWAY CHILDREN, THREATENING TO SOMEHOW AFFECT IN -- ESPECIALLY IN DIVORCE, CUSTODIAL RIGHTS, THREATENING TO AFFECT A WOMAN'S FINANCIAL STATE OF WELL-BEING SO SHE CAN'T SUPPORT HER KIDS OR TAKE CARE OF THEM, WRITING HER A LETTER TELLING HER SHE'S GOING TO GO TO JAIL AND TAKE OUT -- TAKE AWAY ALL THE MONEY THAT SHE HAS, TAKE AWAY HER ABILITY TO SUPPORT HER CHILDREN. USING MALE PRIVILEGE; IT IS MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS, NOT GIVING HER A ROLE WITHIN THE RELATIONSHIP, BEING THE MASTER OF THE CASTLE, THE CENTER OF ATTENTION, THE PERSON THAT WHENEVER ANYONE GOES -- WHEREVER YOU GO, THE ATTENTION HAS TO CENTER AROUND THE BATTERER, JUST AS IN THIS CASE. ECONOMIC ABUSE, USING MONEY AS A CONTROLLING MECHANISM, DECIDING HOW MUCH MONEY SHE COULD HAVE, MAKING SURE SHE DOESN'T WORK, THREATENING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM HER THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE AND USING COERCION AND THREATS, PHYSICAL THREATS, "I'M GOING TO HURT YOU, I'M GOING TO KILL YOU, I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU." THOSE ARE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF ABUSE, DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONDUCT, DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONDUCT THAT WE SEE IN THIS CASE. THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE SIMILAR AND THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE LINKED. AND HOW THEY ARE SIMILAR AND LINKED IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BEHAVIORS OF CONTROL, THEY ARE ALL BEHAVIORS OF POWER. AND IMPRINTED ON TOP OF ALL THESE IS "PHYSICAL VIOLENCE." AND LATER IN THE PRESENTATION, WHEN I'M DISCUSSING BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME, I WILL EXPLAIN THIS MORE WITH REGARD TO WHAT THAT COMMONLY MEANS IS POWER AND CONTROL, WHICH WILL EXPLAIN THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF ABUSES. MR. GOLDBERG WILL THEN ADDRESS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS EVIDENCE UNDER CERTAIN THEORIES OF ADMISSIBILITY, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS, TALK ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WHY THIS LEGALLY -- THIS NOTION, SUPPORT OF THIS EVIDENCE COMING IN AS PART OF THIS TRANSACTION OF THIS HOMICIDE. HOWEVER, IT ALSO COMES IN UNDER TRADITIONALLY 1101(B). WE WILL ADDRESS DUE PROCESS CONCERNS THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN OUR BRIEF, BUT NOT ADDRESSED TODAY IN ARGUMENTS AND DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES UNDER 352. WE'LL THEN ADDRESS THE COURT THEN WITH USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SPECIFICALLY 1107 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. AND JUST A FOOTNOTE ON THAT. I WILL GET INTO MORE DETAIL. IT MUST BE KEPT IN MIND, 1107 IS NOT A STATUTE WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BE AN EXCLUSIONARY DEVICE. IT WAS A STATUTE WHICH BECAME THE GENESIS, THE SEED. ITS DEVELOPMENT WAS A STATUTE WHICH WOULD BRING THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LIGHT OF DAY. 1107 STARTED FROM CASES IN WHICH A WOMAN HAD KILLED HER BATTERER, AND THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BRING THIS EVIDENCE IN TO EXPLAIN HER CONDUCT. AS MR. UELMEN SAID, IT BASICALLY AROSE AROUND THE TIME ARIS WAS DECIDED. NOW, WE WILL TALK ABOUT ARIS BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION A BIT. AND I CERTAINLY WILL ADDRESS THAT, BUT THIS RULE AROSE AS A RESULT OF INCLUSION. LOOKING AT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS STATUTE -- MISS BODIN WILL ADDRESS THAT. SHE WAS PART OF THAT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WAS PRESENT FOR EVERY HEARING ON IT, IN FACT WROTE SEVERAL OF THE ADDENDUMS TO THAT STATUTE, WAS ACTUALLY PART OF IT. WHAT WAS CLEAR FROM THAT LEGISLATURE INTENT WAS THAT THIS WAS A STATUTE OF INCLUSION. IT SPECIFICALLY IS STATED WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THAT STATUTE, WITHIN THE AUTHOR'S INTENT THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO ABROGATE ANY STANDING CASE LAW OR OTHER STATUTORY DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE INCLUSION OF BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME EVIDENCE. SO THE NOTION THAT 1107 SOMEHOW NARROWS WHAT OTHER CASE LAW WE HAVE OUT THERE, THAT IS NOT BEHIND THAT STATUTE. IF THERE WERE OTHER METHODS WITHIN WHICH TO INTRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE BEYOND 1107, THEY STAND. BUT THE PROHIBITION IN 1107 IS LINKED DIRECTLY TO BLEDSOE AND BALKER AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WHICH PROVIDES THE COURT WITH AN ANALOGOUS, JUST LIMITED TO BLEDSOE AND BALKER, THAT PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS LIMITED TO ONE THING. AND THAT'S THE KIND OF EXCLUSION THAT THERE IS IN BLEDSOE WITH RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME OR BALKER AND CHILD ACCOMMODATION SYNDROME WHERE WHAT I AM PROHIBITED FROM DOING AS A PROSECUTOR IS TO ASK A DOCTOR, "HAVE YOU EXAMINED THE VICTIM; AND IF YOU HAVE, DO YOU THINK SHE WAS RAPED?" I CAN'T -- WE DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT, USE THE EVIDENCE THAT TYPE OF WAY. THAT IS THE LIMITATION THAT IS PLACED ON BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME UNDER 1107. TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S GREATER THAN THAT, TO SUGGEST THAT IT GOES FARTHER THAN THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE CASE LAW OR THE STATUTES OR THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. AS THIS CASE HAS PROGRESSED, WE HAVE DEALT WITH A LOT OF BRAND NEW ISSUES IN THE LAW, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO PRESENTING EVIDENCE, ISSUES WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRIALS. IN FACT, IN MANY WAYS, WHAT IS OCCURRING WITHIN THIS TRIAL AND THE WAY THAT THIS TRIAL IS BEING PRESENTED PERCEIVED BY THE PUBLIC WILL TAKE US INTO PROBABLY THE 21ST CENTURY AS TO WHAT WILL OCCUR IN TRIAL, AND WE'RE SETTING THE PRECEDENCE. AND THAT IS SOMETHING CERTAINLY TO BE APPLAUDED. AS WE DO THAT, WE CERTAINLY CANNOT DO THAT WITH 19TH CENTURY SENSIBILITIES. WOMEN HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEIR ABUSE HAS BEEN KEPT IN THE SHADOWS. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND WHAT OCCURS TO A WOMAN, ONE OF THE DYNAMICS OF THAT ENTIRE STRUGGLE IS ONE OF SECRECY, SHADOWS AND VEIL. IT CERTAINLY HAS TO BE BROUGHT OUT INTO THE LIGHT AT SOME POINT. AND WHEN WE HAVE A STATE OF THE LAW WHERE THE STATE OF THE LAW IS, THAT IS SO CLEAR THAT WHEN A WOMEN HAS KILLED HER BATTERER, THAT THAT EVIDENCE MUST COME IN, IT'S REVERSIBLE EVIDENCE ERROR FOR IT NOT TO COME IN, THEN CERTAINLY IF THAT GROUP OF WOMEN NEED TO BE PROTECTED BY THAT EVIDENCE COMING IN, AS IT WELL SHOULD, THEN WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THEIR BATTERERS CERTAINLY NEED TO HAVE THE COURT OR THE TRIER OF FACT LISTEN TO THAT EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE PROPER JUDGMENT. PEOPLE VERSUS DAY, VERY RECENT CASE WHICH INTERPRETED 1107, THE COURT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THAT WHEN IT SAID THAT -- I GOT A CITE FOR THE COURT -- 2 CAL. APP. 4 409 -- WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT THE TRIER OF FACT, IN MANY CASES, HAS THE JUROR SITTING THERE, HAVE NEVER BEEN RAPED, HAVE NOT LIVED WITHIN A BATTERER -- AS A BATTERED PERSON, HAVE NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH CHILD ABUSE. AND FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OCCURS IN THAT CASE, THEY NEED TO HEAR EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH EXPLAINS IT. IN FACT, THE COURT GOES ON TO SAY IN THAT CASE THAT:
"DEPRIVING THE FINDER OF FACT OF SUCH UNDERSTANDING MAY WELL LEAD TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON MISCONCEPTIONS UPHELD IN GOOD FAITH, THAT SUCH CONCEPTIONS ARE HELD IN GOOD FAITH AND NO WAY LESSENS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ERROR AND THE INJUSTICE THAT WILL RESULT." WHAT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED FROM THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT UNDER THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE HERE, THE LEGAL ANALYSIS AND THE POLICY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO EXPERT TESTIMONY, IT WILL BECOME CLEAR THAT THE HISTORY OF ABUSE, THE PATTERN OF ABUSE SUFFERED BY THE VICTIM, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, IN THIS CASE MUST COME INTO THIS TRIAL. THERE WAS A MOTIVE FOR THIS KILLING, AND THIS MOTIVE WAS THE SAME MOTIVE WHICH IS PRESENT IN THE MAJORITY OF SPOUSAL, WIFE KILLINGS; AND THAT IS ONE OF ESTRANGEMENT AND JEALOUSY. THAT IS CLEARLY WHAT THE MOTIVE IS IN THIS CASE. WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT TEXTBOOK TYPES OF CASES, DRUG CASES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. THAT IS A TEXTBOOK MOTIVE, AND WE HAVE A DUTY AS PROSECUTORS TO PROVE MOTIVE. THE EVIDENCE THAT WE DESCRIBED HERE TODAY PROVES THAT. WE HAVE A DUTY AS PROSECUTORS TO PROVE INTENT. WE WILL PROVE INTENT; AND THE INTENT THAT WE WILL PROVE IS THE INTENT TO CONTROL, THE INTENT THAT WAS PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP, THE CONTROL THAT STARTED ON A FAIRLY LOW LEVEL, THAT STARTED WITH DECIDING WHO SHE COULD SEE, WHAT SHE COULD WEAR, WHERE SHE COULD GO, CONTROL THAT ESCALATED WITH PUBLIC HUMILIATION, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, VERY SPECIFIC PROPERTY DESTRUCTION, WHICH IS CALLED SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE, DESTROYING THE PICTURES OF HER FAMILY, POSSESSIONS THAT WERE VERY CLOSE TO HER. IT ESCALATES. AT ONE POINT, SHE ATTEMPTED TO GET AWAY. AND WHEN SHE DID, SHE FINALLY DID SOMETHING WHICH MARKED IN THIS DEFENDANT'S MIND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER. AND IT'S VERY COMMON IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS OF THE MIND SET THAT, "I CONTROL THIS WOMAN. SHE IS MINE. I HAVE TO HAVE HER. SHE IS THE ONLY WOMAN IN THE WORLD FOR ME. I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT HER. IF I CAN'T HAVE HER, NO ONE WILL." THOSE ARE STATEMENTS WHICH ARE CLASSIC IN THESE TYPES OF CASES. THEY ARE STATEMENTS THAT ARE HERE. AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT MESSAGE FINALLY GETS CLEAR -- THROUGH TO THE BATTERER, THAT HE CAN'T HAVE HER ANYMORE, THAT SHE IS FINALLY GOING TO ESCAPE THIS CYCLE, SHE'S FINALLY BUILT UP THE COURAGE TO GO, THAT THE CONTROL DOESN'T -- THE ACTS OF CONTROL THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON AND ESCALATING DON'T WORK ANYMORE. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER CONTROL MECHANISM THAT COMES INTO PLACE, BECAUSE IF HE CAN'T HAVE HER, NO ONE WILL. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE ESTRANGEMENT, THE JEALOUSY COMES UP, WELLS UP WITHIN HIM AND THERE HAS TO BE A MECHANISM, CONTROL EMPLOYED. AND THAT LAST AND TERMINAL MECHANISM OF CONTROL, THAT WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BATTERER CAN HAVE HER AND NO ONE ELSE WILL IS TO KILL HER. THAT IS CLEAR IN THE RESEARCH. IT IS CLEAR IN THE SCIENCES THAT WORK WITH BATTERERS. IT IS CLEAR IN THE SOCIAL POLICY. IT IS WHY SOME OF THE LEGISLATORS HAVE ENACTED STRONG STATUTES TO INTERVENE BATTERING IN A VERY LOW END TO PREVENT HOMICIDES. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. YOUR HONOR, EVERY YEAR, AS WE HAVE HEARD, THERE ARE AT LEAST 2.5 MILLION WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HAS RECENTLY REPORTED THAT ABOUT 35 -- BETWEEN 22 PERCENT AND 35 PERCENT OF THE WOMEN VISITING EMERGENCY ROOMS EVERY YEAR ARE DOING SO BECAUSE OF AN INSTANT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. MANY OF THESE WOMEN ARE INJURED AND KILLED BECAUSE THEIR VIOLENCE STAYS SECRET. THE VIOLENCE THAT OCCURS TO THEM STAYS IN THE SHADOW. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS ONE OF THESE WOMEN. AND UP UNTIL TODAY, UP UNTIL THIS TRIAL, HER ABUSE HAS BEEN HIDDEN TOO JUST LIKE IT IS WITH SO MANY OTHER WOMEN. NOW, AT LEAST AT THAT POINT WHERE HER BATTERER IS ON TRIAL FOR KILLING HER, THAT EVIDENCE WHICH EXPLAINS HER LIFE, EXPLAINS WHAT HAPPENED TO HER AND EXPLAINS WHY SHE WAS KILLED GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE, GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THIS RELATIONSHIP AND IS THE TRUTH. AND AS ZACK SAYS, THE PROCESS OF A TRIAL IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH, NOT PART OF IT, BUT ALL OF IT.
YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO MAKE A FACTUAL PRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE. I APPRECIATE THE COURT GIVING US A LIST OF ACTS. IT IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND BASICALLY COMPORTED WHAT WE HAD ALREADY SET UP FOR OURSELVES, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT. SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT HAD ASKED US TO ADDRESS LEGAL THEORIES. AS I GO THROUGH MY ARGUMENT AND TALK ABOUT THE FACTS THAT ARE SPOKEN OF IN OUR BRIEF AND OF COURSE THE NEW ACTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR ADDENDUM, I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL THEORIES THAT UNDER PIN -- UNDER PIN, THE ADMISSION OF THESE ACTS. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE TO THE COURT TODAY STARTS IN 1977 UNTIL THE TIME OF THE MURDER OF THE VICTIM BY THE DEFENDANT. THE ACTS OF ABUSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: OBSESSIVE AND JEALOUS BEHAVIOR, PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF THE VICTIM, FINANCIAL MANIPULATION, THREATS OF VIOLENCE, ACTUAL PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, STALKING AND FINALLY THE MURDER ITSELF. THERE IS AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH THAT HAS LOOKED INTO THE ISSUE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND IN LAW, THERE IS EQUALLY AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF LAW THAT LOOKS AT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE TYPES OF ACTS THAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED TO THE COURT ARE ACTS THAT HAVE BEEN WELL ADDRESSED IN THE CASE LAW. WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY DESTRUCTION -- AND THESE ARE CITED IN OUR BRIEF -- THERE ARE TWO CASES, HELFEN AND HAYLOCK. AND THOSE CASES TALK ABOUT PROPERTY DESTRUCTION. BOTH OF THEM TALK ABOUT ARSON. AND WHAT THE COURT SAID IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES IS THAT PROPERTY DESTRUCTION GOES TO MOTIVE. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IS DISCUSSED IN ZACK. THERE'S LOTS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IN THE FACT PATTERN THAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT AND SPECIFICALLY THAT GOES TO IDENTITY A PERMISSIBLE 1101(B) PURPOSE, AS IS MOTIVE. STALKING, IT'S TALKED ABOUT IN THE NICHOLAS CASE. AND PARTICULARLY STALKING AND STARING WHICH WE SEE IN THIS CASE, AND IN THE NICHOLAS CASE, THE COURT SAYS THAT GOES TO PREMEDITATION, WHICH WE HAVE TO PROVE IN THIS CASE. POSSESSIVENESS AND JEALOUSY GOES TO MOTIVE. AND THERE ARE THREE CASES CITED IN OUR BRIEF THAT TALK ABOUT THAT IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONTEXT. THOSE THREE CASES ARE THE DUMAS CASE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT STATED, "IF I CAN'T HAVE YOU, NOBODY ELSE CAN." THAT UNFORTUNATELY BECOMES AN ECHO IN THIS CASE. THE SHAVER CASE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACCUSED THE VICTIM AND ULTIMATELY MURDERED HER -- ACCUSED HER OF BEING WITH OTHER MEN AND ULTIMATELY KILLED HER BECAUSE OF IT. AND THE DANIELS CASE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT JEALOUSY, QUARRELS AND ENMITY, WHICH AGAIN UNFORTUNATELY IS A VERY FAMILIAR THEME IN THE FACT PATTERN I'M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE TO THIS COURT. AND FINALLY, FINANCIAL MANIPULATION. AND THAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE ARGENTOS CASE, WHICH IS NOT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE, BUT TALKS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO GOLD MINERS. RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE IS NOT LIMITED MERELY TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND THE CASE LAW IN CALIFORNIA BEGINNING IN THE EARLY 1920'S IS REPLETE WITH CASES INVOLVING RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE. WE'VE CITED THEM IN OUR BRIEF AND I'VE CITED SOME OF THEM TO THE COURT. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON MET THE DEFENDANT IN 1977. THE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IN THIS RELATIONSHIP BEGAN EARLY. IN FACT, IT BEGAN IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT IN 1977 OR 1978, THERE WAS A VERY LOUD ARGUMENT OVERHEARD BY THEIR NEIGHBORS ON ASHTON STREET. THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONNIE AND STEVEN GOOD. THE PEOPLE HAVE CONDUCTED AN INTERVIEW WITH MS. GOOD. MS. GOOD STATES THAT SHE REMEMBERS THE INCIDENT VERY WELL. AND WHAT SHE REMEMBERS IS THIS: SHE COULD HEAR ARGUING. SHE COULD HEAR THE DEFENDANT YELLING AND CALLING THE VICTIM NAMES. SPECIFICALLY, HE CALLED HER A FUCKING BITCH AND A MOTHER FUCKER. SHE KNEW THE SOUND OF HIS VOICE. SHE HAD HEARD IT BEFORE AROUND THE APARTMENT. SHE HAD HEARD IT IN AN ELEVATOR AND THAT IT HAD A UNIQUE SOUND. SHE HEARD THUMPING AND THE VOICE OF A FEMALE CRYING. A DAY OR TWO LATER, SHE SAW THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT IN AN ELEVATOR, AND THE VICTIM HAD TWO BLACK EYES. MR. UELMEN HAS ARGUED THAT BECAUSE THIS HAPPENED SO LONG AGO, THAT THIS IS ATTENUATED, THAT IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER. THERE IS A THEME OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. AND I'LL KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT THIS AS I GO THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THAT WE HAVE STEALTH THROUGH THIS STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THROUGH THE LIFE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON THAT IS CONSISTENT, THAT IS VICIOUS, THAT ESCALATED TO OTHER FORMS OF ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR AND IT IS BUT THE PRELUDE TO WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS A HOMICIDE. IT SHOWS THE START OF A LONG HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THERE ARE DIARY ENTRIES THAT MR. UELMEN HAS ALLUDED TO IN HIS ARGUMENT. SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS A DIARY ENTRY WITH REGARD TO A TIME IN 1977 WHERE THE DEFENDANT SLAMMED THE VICTIM INTO A WALL. AND THERE WAS A WITNESS TO THAT, AND THAT WITNESS WAS AL COWLINGS. NEXT, THERE IS AN ENTRY IN THAT DOCUMENT, THAT DIARY, WITH REGARD TO A TRIP TO NEW YORK WHERE THE DEFENDANT PUBLICLY SLAPPED HER AND CALLED HER MOTHER A WHORE, AND SHE HAD CALLED FOR HELP ON THE STREET. THERE IS AN INCIDENT IN 1982 WHERE THE VICTIM WENT TO A FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT'S BY THE NAME OF WAYNE HUGHES. MR. UELMEN HAS STATED THAT IS RANK HEARSAY. WE HAVE A WITNESS. THEY HAVE COPIES OF OUR INTERVIEW WITH THAT WITNESS, THAT IS MR. WAYNE HUGHES, WITH REGARD TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON COMING TO HIS HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH A RED SPOT BEGGING HIM TO TALK TO THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SHE WAS EXTREMELY UPSET AND BORE THE MARKS OF VIOLENCE. IN 1978, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT THAT IS RECORDED IN THE DIARY WITH REGARD TO THE DEFENDANT HITTING HER IN THE WINE CELLAR AND LOCKING HER IN THERE. THERE WAS ALSO, IN THAT SAME DOCUMENT, A NOTATION WITH REGARD TO A SAN JOSE TRACK MEET WHERE HE BACKHANDED HER IN THE CAR AND THEN LEFT HER ON A ROADSIDE. AND FINALLY IN THAT DOCUMENT, THERE IS A MENTION OF A HIT THAT SHE TOOK, A BEATING THAT SHE TOOK BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT FOUND A NOTE THAT SHE WROTE TO HERSELF. NOW, MR. UELMEN HAS DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM -- HEARSAY PROBLEM OF GETTING IN DIARY ENTRIES. AND THAT'S WELL TAKEN. BUT I THINK THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE ON NOTICE THAT WE CERTAINLY ARE GOING TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES WHO THE DEFENSE PRESENT, PERHAPS THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, WITH REGARD TO THESE INCIDENTS. WE PUT THEM IN TO SHOW THE COURT WHAT WE HAVE. FURTHERMORE, WE ARE HAVING OBVIOUSLY AN EXPERT LOOK AT THIS CASE AND WE ARE HAVING THE EXPERT USE THOSE INCIDENTS, THOSE DIARY INCIDENTS AS PART OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION THAT THE EXPERT WILL FORM IN THIS CASE. FINALLY -- AND THE COURT KNOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, AND WE HAVE AN ON-GOING INVESTIGATION. IT HAS BEEN THE CASE WHERE WE HAVE HAD DIARY ENTRIES THAT HAVE FINALLY BEEN CORROBORATED BY KNOWN WITNESSES. AND THAT'S OCCURRED A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THIS CASE. AND SO WE DID INCLUDE THEM IN OUR STATEMENT OF FACTS AND WE DID WANT TO PUT EVERYBODY ON NOTICE THAT WE DID HAVE THEM AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE THEM. IN 1978, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT THE LA CANTINA -- I GUESS -- IT IS A BAR I THINK AS CHARACTERIZED BY MR. UELMEN. IN 1978, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THE DEFENDANT, DENISE BROWN AND ED MC CABE WENT TO LA CANTINA WHERE THEY CONTINUED THEIR GET-TOGETHER BACK TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS. BACK AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS, THEY WERE TALKING, HAVING A SOCIAL OCCASION, DENISE BROWN COMMENTED THAT O.J. TOOK NICOLE FOR GRANTED. IT WAS A SIMPLE STATEMENT. THE DEFENDANT LITERALLY THREW A FIT. WHAT HE DID WAS, HE THREW THEM ALL OUT OF THE HOUSE, HE SLAMMED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INTO A WALL, HE THREW HER OUT THE DOOR FROM A FOYER ENTRANCE AND HE BROKE ALL THE FAMILY PICTURES. WE HAVE AN EYEWITNESS TO THIS. IT DOES SHOW A LONG HISTORY OF QUARRELING AND A PHYSICAL ABUSE AGAIN IN 1978, WHERE ONCE AGAIN, PICKING UP THE THREAD OF PHYSICAL ABUSE. WE'RE ALSO PICKING UP THE THREAD NOW OF PROPERTY DAMAGE, DESTROYING FAMILY PICTURES. IN 1983 TO 1984, WE HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH A WOMAN WHO WORKED FOR THE SIMPSON'S BY THE NAME OF MARIA BAUR. THERE WAS A STATEMENT TAKEN FROM HER THAT SHE OBSERVED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WALKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY LITERALLY HOLDING HERSELF AND CRYING. MARIA INQUIRED OF HER, "WHAT'S WRONG, NICOLE?" AND SHE SAID, "YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED." AND WHEN MARIA WENT INTO THE HOUSE, SHE FOUND GLASS ALL UP AND DOWN THE STAIRS, AND SHE CLEANED IT UP. IN FACT, THERE IS A CONSISTENT THEME THROUGHOUT THIS FACT PATTERN THAT THE DEFENDANT LIKES TO DESTROY PHOTOS OF THE VICTIM. HE DESTROYS FAMILY PHOTOS, A FORM OF HUMILIATION, A FORM OF DEGRADATION, A DESTRUCTION OF CHERISHED MOMENTOES, THINGS THAT ARE BORNE CLOSE TO THE HEART, THINGS THAT REALLY MEAN SOMETHING, THINGS THAT PERHAPS COULD BE REPLACED MONETARILY, BUT THE SENTIMENTAL VALUE IS EXCESSIVE TO A PERSON. BY 1986, THE VICTIM IS RELATING IN HER DIARY THAT SHE HAD GONE OUT FOR AN EVENING WITH SOME FRIENDS, GOT IN AN ARGUMENT AND THE DEFENDANT BEAT HER. THERE IS MEDICAL EVIDENCE FROM THIS INCIDENT FROM DR. MARTIN ALPERT. WHAT THE VICTIM RELATED WAS THAT SHE HAD HAD A BICYCLE ACCIDENT. THE DOCTOR SAYS THAT BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE INJURY, THE TYPE OF INJURY THAT SHE SUSTAINED, IT WAS IMPLAUSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT SHE HAD A BICYCLE ACCIDENT. WHAT WE KNOW -- AND IF AN EXPERT WILL TESTIFY AND SHOULD TESTIFY IN A CASE INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- IS THAT VERY FREQUENTLY, VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DO NOT REPORT HOW THEY OBTAIN THEIR INJURY. THEY'RE AFRAID TO DO IT AND THEY'RE PARTICULARLY AFRAID TO DO IT WHEN THEY'RE ACCOMPANIED FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT BY THEIR BATTERER. AND THAT IS TRUE IN THIS CASE. SHE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE DEFENDANT FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT. ONCE AGAIN, AN INCIDENT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE AND SHOWING ONCE AGAIN CONTINUOUS CONDUCT INVOLVING PHYSICAL ABUSE. BY 1985 -- AND IN 1985, WE HAVE AN INCIDENT INVOLVING THE SMASHING OF A WHITE MERCEDEZ THAT BELONGED TO THE VICTIM. WE HAVE TWO ACCOUNTS OF THIS. MR. UELMEN STATED THAT THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF THIS IS THROUGH THE MEMORANDUM WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT SO, THAT HE HAS MISCHARACTERIZED THE FACTS TO THIS COURT. WE HAVE ANOTHER REPORT BY AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF SERGEANT MARK DAY, WHO AT THAT TIME IN 1985 WORKED FOR WESTEC SECURITY, AND HE RESPONDED TO THE INCIDENT. HE'S WRITTEN A REPORT. THE DEFENSE HAS IT. WE HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS BESIDES DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. AND I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT THERE IS A CHALLENGE IN THIS HEARING TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. CREDIBILITY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN A 402 HEARING. BUT WE DO HAVE WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE AND WE HAVE EYEWITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE. ONCE AGAIN, AN EXAMPLE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE, A DESTRUCTION OF WHAT PROBABLY WAS A STATUS SYMBOL OF A BELOVED OBJECT TO A BATTERED WOMAN. IN 1988, THERE IS AN -- EXCUSE ME -- THERE IS AN INCIDENT RECANTED IN THE DIARY, AND IT WAS WITNESSED BY DENISE BROWN, WHEREIN THE DEFENDANT BECAME ANGRY BECAUSE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ALLOWED A GAY MAN TO KISS HER CHILD. AND WHAT DENISE SAW WAS THAT THE DEFENDANT GOT MAD, YELLED AT NICOLE MERELY BECAUSE SHE LET A STRANGER KISS HER BABY BECAUSE THE MAN THOUGHT THAT HER CHILD WAS CUTE, AND NICOLE LEFT THE CAR THAT THEY WERE RIDING IN AND HAD TO RIDE BACK TO THE HOTEL WITH HER PARENTS. DENISE ALSO RELATES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR VACATION IN HAWAII, NICOLE WORE A BATHING SUIT COVER-UP. NICOLE REPORTS IN HER DIARY THAT SHE HAD BEEN BEATEN UP TO THE EXTENT THAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT COVER-UP. IN 1988, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON RECORDS IN A THREE-PAGE LETTER THAT SHE HAD SCHEDULED AN OUTING FOR HERSELF AND HER CHILDREN TO "DISNEY ON ICE". THIS WAS A TIME WHEN SHE WAS TWO MONTHS' PREGNANT. SHE HAD ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH HER AND SHE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO GO. BY THE TIME THAT IT CAME TIME TO ACTUALLY GO TO "DISNEY ON ICE", HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO. AND SO SHE JUST SIMPLY TOOK THE CHILDREN AND WENT WITH HER MOTHER AND HER SISTER, DOMINIQUE, BY HERSELF WITH THE CHILDREN, LEAVING THE DEFENDANT TO DO WHATEVER HE WAS DOING. WHEN SHE GOT HOME, HE BEGAN TO DENIGRATE HER. HE BEGAN TO CALL HER A FAT SLOB, TO CALL HER A PIG. WHEN SHE WAS TWO MONTHS' PREGNANT, HE MADE HER LEAVE THE HOUSE WITH SIDNEY, HER CHILD, AND TOLD HER OVER THE PHONE THAT HE HAD A GUN. AND WE KNOW OF COURSE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS A GUN COLLECTION. THAT OCCURS IN THE FACT PATTERN. AND THEN AL COWLINGS WAS PRESENT FOR A PART OF IT, THAT HE SORT OF TOOK CHARGE OF SIDNEY SO THAT NICOLE COULD LEAVE THE ROOM AND THE DEFENDANT COULD FOLLOW HER OUT, DENIGRATING HER THE WHOLE TIME. THERE IS AN INCIDENT REPORTED IN 1986 TO 1987 BY AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF ALBERT AGUILARA -- AND THAT OCCURS IN OUR ADDENDUM THAT WE FILED -- WHERE HE SEES NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON GET HIT BY THE DEFENDANT AT VICTORIA BEACH. IT APPEARED TO HIM THAT THEY WERE SIMPLY PLAYING, NICOLE WAS TEASING THE DEFENDANT ON THE BEACH, AND THEN HE JUST BASICALLY REACHED UP AND SLAPPED HER IN THE FACE. ONCE AGAIN OF COURSE, I'M SURE THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S ATTENUATION IN TIME. BUT ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD REITERATE TO THE COURT THAT IT REINFORCES ONCE AGAIN THE PATTERNS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, THE CONSISTENT THEME THAT RUNS THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. AND THEN WE GET TO 1989, NEW YEAR'S DAY. THERE IS A 911 TAPE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE, THE DEFENSE HAS WHEREIN IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE TAPE, YOU CAN HEAR A WOMAN SCREAMING. THE POLICE REPORT TO THE HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM. OFFICER EDWARDS FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT GETS THERE, AND HE CALLS AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, "WHAT'S GOING ON? WHO'S SCREAMING? I'M NOT GOING TO LEAVE HERE UNTIL I FIND OUT WHO'S SCREAMING." HE'S TOLD SIMPLY TO GO AWAY PRESUMABLY BY THE HOUSEKEEPER MICHELLE. AND WHILE HE'S THERE, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON RUNS OUT WEARING ONLY A PAIR OF SWEAT PANTS AND A BRA. SHE YELLED OUT TO HIM, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." IT WAS CLEAR TO OFFICER EDWARDS THAT SHE HAD BEEN BEATEN UP. BOTH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THE DEFENDANT TELL THE POLICE THAT THEY HAD BEEN OUT THERE AT LEAST EIGHT TIMES BEFORE. THE DEFENDANT TELLS THE POLICE THAT THIS WAS A FAMILY MATTER. AND IN FACT, WHAT HE DID WAS, HE FOLLOWED HER OUT THERE. AFTER THE TIME THAT THE POLICE SAW HER RUNNING OUT SAYING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME," THEN THE DEFENDANT ARRIVES IN A BATHROBE. AND INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE POLICE, WHAT HE DOES IS, HE STARTS YELLING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, SUCH THAT THE POLICE HAVE TO GIVE HER A JACKET AND LET HER SIT IN THE POLICE CAR. WE HAVE PICTURES OF THAT INCIDENT THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. MR. UELMEN HAS CHARACTERIZED THIS AS A BEDROOM ARGUMENT, SOME SLAPPING AND SOME HITTING. ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS, AND I'LL NOW SHOW THAT PICTURE TO THE COURT.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, I'M GOING TO MARK THESE SO THEY WILL BE IDENTIFIED AT SOME LATER TIME SHOULD WE NEED TO HAVE A RECORD OF THIS.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY A SERIES OF THREE PHOTOS. THE FIRST PHOTO THAT I'M LOOKING AT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND SHE'S WEARING A PAIR OF SWEAT PANTS, AND THEY APPEAR DIRTY ON ONE SIDE. I AM MARKING THAT AS P-1 AND I'M MARKING THAT IN THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER. MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT TO CONFER WITH MR. DARDEN?
YOUR HONOR, I AM GOING TO CONFER -- I'M NOT FINISHED CONFERRING WITH MR. DARDEN. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS, I'M GOING TO MARK IT IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF EACH PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE SOME WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO ON THOSE. AND IF I DON'T MARK IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE, IT'S GOING TO COMPROMISE OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT WORK. SO WITH REGARD TO P-1, THAT'S THE PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON STANDING WITH DIRTY SWEAT PANTS. AND I'M SHOWING THESE TO MR. UELMEN SO HE CAN SEE HOW I'M MARKING THEM. P-2 IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON PULLING HER HAIR BACK AND SHOWING HER FACE. AND FINALLY, P-3, WHICH IS ALSO A PHOTOGRAPH -- IT'S MORE OF A FULL FACIAL PHOTO -- SHE'S PULLING ALL THE HAIR OFF HER FACE. AND I AM MARKING THAT AS P-3.
PLEASE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MS. BODIN. I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.
ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. IN ADDITION TO THE PICTURES THAT I'VE PRESENTED NOW TO THE COURT, THERE ARE ALSO THREE APOLOGY LETTERS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED OR THAT HAVE COME INTO OUR POSSESSION. THOSE THREE APOLOGY LETTERS WERE SEIZED FROM THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. WE ACTUALLY WILL HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE. WE HAVE SHOWN THOSE TO COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS. I'VE SENT FOR MY INVESTIGATOR, AND I'LL LET THE COURT TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE ALSO IN JUST A MOMENT. WE ALSO HAVE A PRENUPTIAL -- A LETTER REGARDING A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT FROM THE DEFENDANT BASICALLY STATING THAT IF HE EVER BEAT HER UP AGAIN WITH REFERENCE TO THIS INCIDENT, THAT THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WOULD BASICALLY BE VOIDED. WE HAVE MEDICAL RECORDS. WE ALSO HAVE A SWORN DEPOSITION WHEREIN THE DEFENDANT ADOPTS HIS LETTER WITH REGARD TO THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT. THERE IS ALSO A TAPE OF THE DEFENDANT TALKING ABOUT THIS INCIDENT ON ESPN, AND HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AN OFFICER FARRELL OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BASICALLY ADOPTING THE FACT THAT THIS HAD OCCURRED. NOW, THERE HAS BEEN SOME QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO GET IN THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THIS CASE BY THE VICTIM. AND I MIGHT ADD, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET IN SOME STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE HE COMES OUT -- HE'S ROARING AT HER WHEN HE COMES OUT THERE. AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND I WOULD LIKE THE COURT -- AND WE DO TALK ABOUT IT IN OUR BRIEF -- TO LOOK AT THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS FARMER. BASICALLY THAT IS A CASE THAT TALKS ABOUT HEARSAY EXCEPTION AND EXCITED UTTERANCE PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1240. WHAT THAT CASE STANDS FOR IS THAT THE CRUCIAL ELEMENTS WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS TYPE OF HEARSAY STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE IS WHETHER THE MENTAL STATE OF THE SPEAKER IS THAT SUCH THAT THE STATEMENT IS BEING MADE UNDER THE STRESS THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE EVENT. WE HAVE ALSO SHOWN IN OUR BRIEF THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS WASHINGTON. PEOPLE VERSUS WASHINGTON BASICALLY LAYS OUT THE ELEMENTS OF 1240 AND STATES THAT IT MUST BE AN OCCURRENCE THAT IS STARTLING ENOUGH TO PRODUCE NERVOUS EXCITEMENT AND RENDER THE UTTERANCE SPONTANEOUS. THERE MUST BE ACTUAL NERVOUS EXCITEMENT AND IT MUST DOMINATE AT THE TIME OF THE UTTERANCE, AND THE UTTERANCE ITSELF MUST BE ABOUT THE STARTLING CIRCUMSTANCE. THE CASE OF PEOPLE V. HUEY STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH STATEMENTS MAY BE OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACT AND TO IDENTIFY THE ASSAILANT. THE INCIDENT THAT THE COURT IS LOOKING AT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE HUEY CASE. IN THE HUEY CASE, THE VICTIM RAN OUT OF THE HOUSE CALLING FOR HELP FROM THE POLICE. THE VICTIM GAVE -- THEN GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE ABOUT THE EVENT THAT TRANSPIRED. IN OUR CASE, THE VICTIM RUNS OUT AND SAYS, "HE'S TRYING TO KILL ME." SHE'S LITERALLY IN FLIGHT. SHE GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE AFTER THEY HAD WRAPPED A COAT AROUND HER. SHE TOLD THE POLICE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD TOLD HER DURING THE BEATING THAT HE WOULD KILL HER, AND THE DEFENDANT CONTINUED THE STRESS OF THE INCIDENT THEN BY COMING OUTSIDE AND ACTUALLY YELLING AT HER WHILE THE POLICE WERE THERE. THE REPEATING OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT, "I'LL KILL YOU," CONSTITUTES COMPOUND HEARSAY, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT. HOWEVER, HIS STATEMENT IS AN ADMISSION OF WHAT HIS INTENT WAS UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1220. HER EXCITED UTTERANCE COMES IN UNDER 1240. SHE ALSO BLURTED SOMETHING OUT THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. SHE BLURTED OUT, "YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS," AND THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS I THINK WHAT'S VERY COMMON IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES; THE FRUSTRATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. AND HISTORICALLY, NOT A LOT HAS BEEN DONE FOR BATTERED WOMEN, EXPLAINS WHY SHE STAYED WITH HIM, WHICH IS THE QUESTION PROBABLY THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE, THAT SHE DIDN'T FEEL PROTECTED; AND INDEED, SHE WASN'T PROTECTED. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ALSO TO NOTE THAT DEFENDANT'S APOLOGY LETTERS WITH REGARD TO THIS INCIDENT ARE ALSO A HALLMARK OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THERE'S A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE THAT OCCURS. IT'S A THREE-PART CYCLE. BASICALLY YOU HAVE THE TENSION BUILDING PHASE. TENSION BUILDING PHASE INVOLVES EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE; TENSIONS ARE BUILDING UP. THEN YOU HAVE ACUTE BATTERING PHASE. WE ARE LOOKING -- IN THIS INCIDENT, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ACUTE BATTERING INCIDENT. HE HITS HER. HE'S RAGING. HE'S OUT OF CONTROL. AND THEN THERE'S A THIRD PHASE, THE CONTRITION PHASE, THE LOVING RESPIT WHERE VERY CHARACTERISTICALLY, WHAT A DEFENDANT WILL SAY IS, HE'LL SAY, "I AM SORRY," SENDS FLOWERS. AND WE KNOW THE DEFENDANT SENDS FLOWERS. I MEAN HE LEAVES FLOWERS ON THE HOME OF HIS EX-WIFE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHILE HE'S STALKING HER. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE DOES, AND IT'S PART OF THE CONTRITION PHASE. YOUR HONOR, I DO NOW HAVE IN COURT THE APOLOGY LETTERS THAT I REFERENCED EARLIER. AND AT THE COURT'S PLEASURE, MAY I SIMPLY APPROACH? AND WHAT I AM GOING TO DO -- I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW I CAN MARK THESE.
THEY ARE ATTACHED TO THE MOTION FOR HANDWRITING EXEMPLAR. WE HAVE STIPULATED TO MR. SIMPSON --
ALL RIGHT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD FOR THIS HEARING, WE WILL MARK BY REFERENCE THE EXHIBITS TO THE HANDWRITING EXEMPLAR MOTION FILED BY THE PEOPLE, AND THOSE EXHIBITS WILL BE DEEMED EXHIBITS -- THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO THAT MOTION WILL BE EXHIBITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING COLLECTIVELY AS PEOPLE'S 4. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MS. BODIN, I DO HAVE THOSE AGAIN IN FRONT OF ME. I DID READ THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULING ON THE MOTION FOR HANDWRITING EXEMPLAR.
ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE WHICH THE COURT SHOULD HAVE IN ITS DOCUMENTS. DOES THE COURT HAVE IT?
YOUR HONOR, I SPOKE TO MR. UELMEN. I DO HAVE A COPY OF THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, AND AT THE COURT'S PLEASURE -- WHAT I CAN DO IS MARK IT I BELIEVE P --
I'M NOT GOING TO PRESENT THE COURT WITH THE SWORN DEPOSITION, BUT I KNOW WE WILL -- AT TRIAL TIME BE DOING THAT. I'M GOING TO ARGUE TO THIS COURT THAT THE --
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOW GOING TO ARGUE TO THIS COURT THAT THE STATEMENT THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON MADE AND THEN HER SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT TO THE POLICE ARE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO 1240. THERE WAS CLEARLY STARTLING OCCURRENCE. THERE'S LOTS OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS RUNNING, THE DEFENDANT BASICALLY IS COMING OUT RIGHT AFTER HER ROARING AT HER. BASICALLY THE POLICE ARE COMING TO AN INCIDENT THAT IS IN PROGRESS. IT IS A STARTLING OCCURRENCE. HER NERVOUS EXCITEMENT SURELY DOMINATED. SHE IS RUNNING OUT IN SWEATS AND A BRA TO A MALE POLICE OFFICER SCREAMING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." I CAN'T IMAGINE A STRONGER CASE FOR NERVOUS EXCITEMENT DOMINATING AT THE TIME OF AN UTTERANCE. BUT THEN THE DEFENDANT COMES OUT AND HE EXTENDS THE TRAUMA TO HER BY YELLING AT HER SUCH THAT SHE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO A POLICE CAR AND MAKES A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE. NOW, CLEARLY HER STATEMENT TO THE POLICE INCLUDED SOME QUESTIONING. THE QUESTIONING IS NOT A BAR TO THE ADMISSION OF 1240 STATEMENTS, AND FARMER DOES STAND FOR THAT PROPOSITION. AND IN FACT, IN FARMER, WHICH CONSTITUTES ADMISSIONS OF A 911 TAPE PURSUANT TO 1240, THERE'S LOTS OF QUESTIONING BY A DISPATCHER. IN FACT, IT'S ARGUABLE THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE ARE EVEN MORE SPONTANEOUS BECAUSE IN THE FARMER CASE, THE 911 OPERATOR ACTUALLY HAD CALLED THE HOME BACK AND SHE TALKED TO TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE. FIRST SHE TALKED TO THE VICTIM'S SISTER AND THEN SHE TALKED TO THE VICTIM IN FARMER. IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A WOMAN BASICALLY RUNNING OUT IN THE MIDST OF A TRANSACTION AND MAKING A STATEMENT. WE'VE MET EVERY ELEMENT OF 1240. WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE COURT TO ADMIT HER STATEMENTS AS WELL AS THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, THE 911 TAPES, THE SCREAMING, THE PICTURES, THREE APOLOGY LETTERS, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, SUBSEQUENTLY A TRIAL MEDICAL RECORD, SWORN DEPOSITION, AND WE DO HAVE A TAPE, I SHOULD TELL THE COURT THAT, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT GOING TO PRESENT IT IN THIS HEARING, WHERE THE DEFENDANT TALKS ABOUT THIS ON ESPN, TALKS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT, HE MINIMIZES IT, HE SAYS IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, SAYS -- AT ONE POINT, HE TELLS OFFICER FARRELL ON A LATER OCCASION FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING I THINK IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BECAUSE BATTERERS TYPICALLY MINIMIZE WHAT THEY DO. THEY REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF WHAT THEY DO. BUT THEY DO BEAT. AND THIS DEFENDANT HIT HER ON THIS OCCASION. I'M ASKING THE COURT TO ENTER THAT STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 1240, HER SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT TO THE POLICE. IN 1988 TO 1989, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WITNESSED BY ALFRED ACOSTA, A LIMOUSINE DRIVER, WHEREIN HE SAW THE DEFENDANT BACKHAND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN THE CAR. WHAT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE DEFENDANT'S PRESENTATION OF FACTS WAS THAT SHE WAS SO FRIGHTENED APPARENTLY THAT SHE INVITED A LIMOUSINE DRIVER INTO HER HOUSE, ARGUABLY TO PROTECT HERSELF. AND WHEN THEY GOT IN THE HOUSE, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY LUNGE AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A STRONG AND CONSISTENT THEME OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ONCE AGAIN APPEARING IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM. IN 1989, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT THAT WAS WITNESSED BY JULIENNE HENDRICKS AND DENISE BROWN THAT OCCURRED AT THE MALIBU RED ONION. MR. UELMEN EUPHEMISTICALLY CHARACTERIZED THIS AS A VERBAL ARGUMENT. THE TRUE FACTS OF THIS INCIDENT ARE THIS: THAT THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WERE PRESENT AT THE MALIBU RED ONION WITH JULIENNE HENDRICKS AND DENISE BROWN. IN PUBLIC, THE DEFENDANT GRABBED THE CROTCH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND SAID, "THIS IS MINE. THIS IS WHERE MY CHILDREN COME FROM." THIS ISN'T A BUMPY MARRIAGE. THIS ISN'T A VERBAL ARGUMENT. THIS IS OUT AND OUT DENIGRATION AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION. BUT IT DIDN'T STOP THERE, BECAUSE WHEN IT GOT TO THE CAR, THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY PUSHED HER OUT OF THE CAR. WE THEN HAVE AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED IN 1991 WHERE EDDIE REYNOZA HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT WHERE HE TOLD REYNOZA THAT IF HE CAUGHT ANY ONE OF HIS WIFE'S BOYFRIENDS DRIVING ANY OF HIS CARS, HE WOULD QUOTE, CUT HIS FUCKING HEAD OFF. AND THAT DISPLAYS THE DEFENDANT'S JEALOUSY, HIS NEED TO CONTROL NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND IT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF A BATTERING RELATIONSHIP AND IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CASE LAW THAT I'VE ALREADY CITED TO THE COURT. IN 1992, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SEPARATED FROM THE DEFENDANT. JUDITHA BROWN, THE MOTHER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, HEARD THE DEFENDANT SAY WHENEVER HE SAW NICOLE WITH ANOTHER MAN, THAT HE COMPLAINED THAT HE WAS PAYING FOR THAT MAN'S MEALS, YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S JEALOUSY. I SHOULD ADD, YOU KNOW, THE DEFENSE HAS TAKEN EACH ONE OF THESE INCIDENTS AND PICKED IT APART AND THE DEFENSE HAS SAID, "WELL, YOU KNOW, HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO A MURDER THAT OCCURRED IN 1994?" THESE ACTS WHEN TAKEN AS A WHOLE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS POSSESSIVE, THAT HE WAS JEALOUS, THAT HE NEEDED TO DOMINATE, THAT HE NEEDED TO CONTROL NOT JUST BY USING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IS A VERY GOOD TOOL FOR CONTROLLING SOMEBODY, BUT IT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL SOMEBODY. YOU CAN CONTROL SOMEBODY WITH JEALOUSY BY PUBLIC HUMILIATION AND ALL THE WAYS THAT I TALKED ABOUT, PROPERTY DAMAGE. AND THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT TYPE OF CONTROL. AFTER THEY SEPARATED, THE DEFENDANT ALSO TOLD JUDITHA BROWN THAT HE SHOULD LET HER GO, "BUT I CAN'T LET HER GO. I CAN'T LET HER GO," YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HIS JEALOUSY, HIS OBSESSIVENESS, HIS NEED TO POSSESS HER. THEY TRIED TO RECONCILE, BUT COULD NOT AND TRIED TO RECONCILE FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD. THE QUESTION I THINK, AND IT WILL ARISE CERTAINLY IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY, WELL, WHY WOULD A BATTERED WOMAN EVER RECONCILE WITH HER BATTERER? THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY A BATTERED WOMAN WOULD RECONCILE WITH A BATTERER. NUMBER ONE, WE KNOW FROM THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OR THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES THAT A BATTERED WOMAN IS IN MORE DANGER WHEN SHE SEPARATES THAN WHEN SHE STAYS. SHE HAS EVERY REASON TO BE AFRAID THAT WHEN SHE LEAVES HIM, SHE'S IN MORE DANGER. SHE IS TO PLACATE, TO MODERATE, TO COPE WITH THE SITUATION. EXPERT CAN SPEAK TO THIS. AND WHAT MAY BE TO THE DEFENSE SEEMINGLY UNIMPORTANT EVENTS DEPICT A CLASSIC PATTERN OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, A CLASSIC PATTERN THAT SPEAKS TO PERMISSIBLE 1101(B) PURPOSES. IN 1993, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND SOME FRIENDS WENT TO THE CALIFORNIA SUSHI RESTAURANT. AND THERE IS -- THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT ENSUED. AND THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER, OFFICER ECKERT FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHO WROTE A MEMORANDUM WITH REGARD TO THIS INCIDENT WHEREIN HE SAW THE DEFENDANT YELLING IN PUBLIC AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHILE SHE WAS SITTING ON A CURB. IT IS YET AGAIN AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILIATION. THERE HAD BEEN AN ARGUMENT AT THIS POINT OVER A MAN THAT NICOLE HAD GONE OUT WITH, AN EXAMPLE OF JEALOUSY. AND IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT WAS SO ANGRY THAT HE ACTUALLY FOLLOWED ANOTHER WOMAN INTO A BATHROOM AT THE RESTAURANT. IN 1993, IN OCTOBER, WE HAVE ANOTHER BREAKING AND ENTERING OR ANOTHER PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENT AT THE GRETNA GREEN RESIDENCE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. WE HAVE A SERIES OF 911 TAPES WHERE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CALLS AND REQUESTS THE POLICE TO HELP. ON THOSE 911 TAPES, THE VOICE OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE SECOND TAPE CAN BE HEARD SWEARING, FILTHY LANGUAGE, MAKING REFERENCES TO SEEING NICOLE WITH KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, YELLING, SCREAMING. AND THE NET RESULT OF THAT IS THAT THERE WAS A BROKEN DOWN DOOR AT THE GRETNA GREEN RESIDENCE. THERE IS A BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENTS MADE ON THE 911 TAPE. THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE CALLS. BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION ARE AS FOLLOWS: NUMBER ONE, EXCITED UTTERANCES UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1240. NUMBER TWO, CONTEMPORANEOUS UTTERANCES, BECAUSE WHAT IS DEPICTED ON THESE 911 TAPES IS A TRANSACTION IN PROGRESS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THE DEFENDANT IN THE BACKGROUND AND YOU CAN HEAR NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON TALKING ABOUT THE DOOR BEING BROKEN IN. THERE ARE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT WITH REGARD TO THE INCIDENTS INVOLVING KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH. THE DEFENSE HAS MADE THE POINT THAT WE CANNOT ENTER HER STATEMENT, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING, AND I QUOTE, FUCKING NUTS AS INADMISSIBLE OPINION EVIDENCE. AND I'LL ADDRESS THAT IN A MINUTE. IT IS NOT INADMISSIBLE OPINION EVIDENCE. FURTHERMORE, THE 911 TAPES FALL WITHIN THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION UNDER 1271, BUT WE STILL MUST NEED A HEARSAY EXCEPTION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND FINALLY, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT MADE WITH REGARD TO RIGHTS TO CONFRONTATION IN THE ENTRANCE OF A HEARSAY STATEMENT INTO COURT. AND I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE. AND I'LL START FIRST WITH THE CONTEMPORANEOUS UTTERANCE. A CONTEMPORANEOUS UTTERANCE IS OFFERED TO EXPLAIN THE CONDUCT OF A DECLARANT, AND IT'S MADE WHILE AN INCIDENT IS IN PROGRESS. THERE ARE STATEMENTS MADE ON THE TAPE WHILE THIS INCIDENT WAS IN PROGRESS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THE VOICE OF THE DEFENDANT, AS I'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY. FURTHERMORE, SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS CONSTITUTE ADMISSIONS PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1220. AN ADMISSION IS ANY STATEMENT OFFERED WHEN IT CAN INCRIMINATE, AND THESE ARE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS SIMPLY BY THE RAGE AND THE OBSCENITY DISPLAYED AND THE FACT THAT HE'S BREAKING INTO HER HOUSE AND BREAKING DOWN THE DOOR IS INCRIMINATING. THE FACT THAT HE ADMITS TO WATCHING HER IN ACTIVE INTIMACY WITH KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH IS ALSO AN ADMISSION. FURTHERMORE, IT'S AN EXCITED UTTERANCE UNDER 1240. NOW, I'VE TALKED ABOUT EXCITED UTTERANCE IN MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT. COUNSEL HAS TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS WAS A 14-MINUTE CONVERSATION. WELL, IT'S TWO PHONE CALLS AND THE DISPATCHER IS QUESTIONING HER WHILE THIS LITERALLY IS GOING ON. AND AGAIN, IT'S SIMILAR TO FARMER WHERE THERE IS QUESTIONING GOING ON, VERY EXTENDED QUESTIONING. THAT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE UTTERANCES OF SPONTANEITY AS REQUIRED BY 1240. SHE'S NARRATING THE EVENT AND IT'S MADE UNDER THE STRESS OF EXCITEMENT. SHE WAS LITERALLY BEING ASSAULTED THE WHOLE TIME THAT THESE 911 TAPES WERE GOING ON. AND THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE OF INADMISSIBLE OPINION EVIDENCE. WELL, THERE'S A CASE RIGHT ON POINT, AND THAT'S THE CASE OF PEOPLE V. GARCIA. WHAT THAT CASE STATES IS THAT THIS TYPE OF STATEMENT CAN COME IN. AND WHAT -- IN THE GARCIA CASE, THE VICTIM STATED, "HE'S GOING CRAZY. HE IS GOING TO KILL ME." THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS CASE. AND WHEN MR. UELMEN MADE HIS FACTUAL PRESENTATION, HE SAID THAT SHE NEVER FELT THREATENED, AND THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. SHE DID FEEL THREATENED. IN FACT, I QUOTE -- I BELIEVE SHE STATES THAT, "HE'S GOING TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME." THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID. AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT -- YEAH. AT PAGE 3, LINE 21 -- I'M NOW SHOWING IT TO COUNSEL -- THE 911 OPERATOR ASSISTED HER SAYS, "OKAY, STAY ON THE LINE." SHE SAYS, "I DON'T WANT TO STAY ON THE LINE. HE IS GOING TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME." THEY'RE QUOTES. YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO MARK THIS AS P-7.
IT'S THE FIRST ONE, YOUR HONOR. AND THE SECOND ONE IS BEING TRANSCRIBED AND WE HAVE GIVEN COPIES OF IT, OF THE TAPE TO THE DEFENSE, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE GIVEN A COPY OF THE FIRST TAPE, THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE DEFENSE. I GUESS -- I KNOW MR. UELMEN IS LOOKING AT IT, SO I KNOW FOR SURE HE HAS IT.
FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO THE CONFRONTATION ISSUE, A NUMBER OF CASES HAVE HELD IF THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION CAN BE MET, THE CONFRONTATION RIGHTS OF A DEFENDANT ARE NOT VIOLATED. AND THREE CASES STAND FOR THAT PROPOSITION, ALTHOUGH THAT'S THE CONSISTENT THEME THROUGHOUT ALL HEARSAY EXCEPTION CASES. BUT THE CASE OF FARMER THAT I'VE ALREADY CITED TO THE COURT AT PAGE 905 TO 906 AND IN THE HUEY CASE AT PAGE 1388 TO 1394 -- THERE'S A THIRD CASE I'LL GIVE TO THE COURT, PEOPLE V. TRIPLE BALANCE AT 5 CAL. APP. 4TH 1235, ALL STANDING FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT ADMISSION OF HEARSAY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT WITH REGARD TO CONFRONTATION. IN 1993, WHILE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS LIVING AT GRETNA GREEN, SHE HAD NEIGHBORS, AND THE NEIGHBORS SAW THE DEFENDANT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS OUTSIDE HER HOUSE. ON ONE OCCASION, THEY ACTUALLY CALLED THE POLICE. THEY BELIEVED THIS HAPPENED SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD GONE TO CABO SAN LUCAS. THEY SAW MR. SIMPSON OUTSIDE HER HOME LURKING AROUND AND TRYING TO LOOK IN THE WINDOWS. THEY ACTUALLY CALLED 911, AND THEN THE POLICE CAME TO THIS INCIDENT. THEY ALSO SAW THE DEFENDANT LEAVE FLOWERS ON HER DOORSTEP. AND THOUGH MR. UELMEN PERHAPS HAS TRIED TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AS SOMEHOW NORMAL OR SOMETHING THAT GOES ON WHEN YOU HAVE CHILDREN, I FIND IT ODD SOMEONE WOULD LEAVE FLOWERS AND BE HANGING AROUND THE WINDOWS OF THE HOME OF SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAD BEEN MARRIED TO THEM BEFORE. AND TO CHARACTERIZE THIS AS BEING IN ANY WAY NORMAL OR CHARACTERISTIC OF A SO-CALLED BUMPY MARRIAGE IS SIMPLY A MISCHARACTERIZATION. ON ONE OCCASION, THEY ACTUALLY SAW HIM BARGE IN ON HER. THEN THERE ARE INCIDENTS WITH REGARD TO KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH. THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SEEN NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND KEITH IN AN ACT OF INTIMACY, THAT HE HAD LOOKED IN THE WINDOW. AND I BELIEVE THAT MR. UELMEN TALKED ABOUT THIS AS BEING CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR AND THAT WHAT WAS AN OTHERWISE OUTRAGEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE WAS ESSENTIALLY WELL HANDLED BY THE DEFENDANT. BUT MY QUESTION TO THIS COURT AND TO MR. UELMEN IS, WHO CREATED THE OUTRAGE HERE? THE OUTRAGE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE WINDOW WHERE HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BEING THERE, NONE WHATSOEVER. AND IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME HE DID THAT. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY -- RATHER THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE COLBY'S. AND FURTHERMORE, WE KNOW FROM MR. ZLOMSOWITCH THAT HE SHOWED UP ONE NIGHT WHEN SHE WAS HAVING DINNER AT MEZALUNA. HE WENT INTO THE RESTAURANT, ACTUALLY SAT THERE AND STARED AT HER. THAT IS -- IN FRONT OF HER FRIENDS IS LITERALLY PUBLICLY HUMILIATING. HE ALSO ON ANOTHER OCCASION AT A RESTAURANT CALLED TRYST, T-R-Y-S-T, TOLD KEITH THAT NICOLE WAS STILL HIS WIFE, AND HE SAT THERE ONCE AGAIN IN THE RESTAURANT AND STARED AT THEM. HE STALKS, HE STARES, HE HUMILIATES IN PUBLIC. STALKING IS ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF HUMILIATING BEHAVIOR. IT LITERALLY STEALS THE SECURITY AWAY FROM ITS VICTIM. AND IN FACT, WE KNOW THAT THE SECURITY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS BEING STOLEN AWAY FROM HER LITTLE BY LITTLE BECAUSE AS WE GET LATER AND LATER IN HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT, SHE IS CONTINUALLY EXPRESSING MORE AND MORE FEAR. SHE'S TELLING EVERYBODY SHE'S AFRAID OF HIM. AND YET ANOTHER STALKING INCIDENT IN 1994 WHEN SHE WAS HAVING COFFEE WITH JEFFEREY KELLER AND RON GOLDMAN, THE DEFENDANT SUDDENLY APPEARED AND HE PARKED ACTUALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND LIKE MOTIONED TO HER, "COME ON OVER HERE." AND SHE DID. SHE WENT OVER THERE. THIS WAS WITNESSED BY JEFFEREY KELLER AND IT'S I THINK INTERESTING BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHO MR. GOLDMAN WAS. WE KNOW THAT HE HAD SEEN HIM PREVIOUSLY. ONCE AGAIN, AN INCIDENT OF STALKING AND HUMILIATION.
ALL RIGHT. MS. BODIN, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A DEEP BREATH FOR A MOMENT. LET'S CHANGE COURT REPORTERS.
THANK YOU. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THAT THE VICTIM MADE WITH REGARD TO HER FEAR. IN FACT, SHE TOLD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE VERY CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL MURDERING INCIDENT ABOUT HER FEAR. SHE TOLD HER MOTHER THAT EVERYWHERE SHE WENT SHE SAW THE DEFENDANT. HE WAS AT THE PAYLESS SHOE STORE WHEN HE WENT THERE AND HE WAS FOLLOWING HER IN HER CAR. SHE TOLD BETSY ROCKETT, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ACTUAL KILLING OCCURRED, THAT HE WAS PEEPING -- THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PEEPING IN ON HER AND HE WAS STARTING TO WEAR DISGUISES. HE TOLD KRIS JENNER THAT SHE BELIEVED THAT HE WOULD KILL HER. NOW, MR. UELMEN HAS TALKED ABOUT THE INABILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO USE STATEMENTS OF FEAR. AND IF WE STOPPED AT THE ARGUMENT THAT MR. UELMEN MADE, THAT WOULD BE A CORRECT ARGUMENT, BUT MR. UELMEN DIDN'T MAKE THE COMPLETE ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT -- THE GOOD ARGUMENT UNDER 1240, AND THAT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT STATEMENTS OF FEAR CAN COME IN WHEN YOU CAN SHOW CONDUCT IN CONFORMITY AND WE DO HAVE CONDUCT IN CONFORMITY PURSUANT TO 1240 TODAY. WE HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM SOJOURN SHELTER THAT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 7TH, 1994, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON MADE A CONTACT WITH SOJOURN. SHE COMPLAINED THAT SHE WAS BEING STALKED. SHE WAS AFRAID, SHE FELT CONFUSED, SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND SHE NAMED THE DEFENDANT AS THE PERSON WHO WAS STALKING HER. SHE ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH HER FEAR. PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID MADE CALLS FOR HER. THEY GO TO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SOJOURN, SHELTERS FOR BATTERED WOMEN. AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT EXIST FOR BATTERED WOMEN ARE THERE TO HELP THEM AND WOMEN GO TO THEM AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WENT TO THAT PLACE BECAUSE SHE WAS AFRAID AND SHE HAD A REASON TO BE AFRAID. AND I THINK THAT ACT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. IT IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER FACTS THAT OCCURRED IN THAT TIME PERIOD. WE KNOW THAT VERY CLOSE IN TIME, RIGHT AROUND THE MIDDLE OF MAY, THAT THE DEFENDANT GAVE THE VICTIM A BRACELET, A VERY EXPENSIVE BRACELET FOR HER BIRTHDAY, AND THE DEFENDANT TALKS THAT ABOUT THAT IN A STATEMENT TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE VICTIM GAVE IT BACK TO HIM AND TOLD HIM THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE HIM AGAIN. YOU HAVE AN ACT OF ESTRANGEMENT HERE AND ACTS OF ESTRANGEMENT, OF DISTANCING, ARE VERY IMPORTANT, AND UNFORTUNATELY, VERY DANGEROUS FOR BATTERED WOMEN. THEY ARE DANGEROUS. WHAT HAPPENS IS IT ESCALATES THE VIOLENCE AND AN EXPERT CAN SPEAK TO THAT. THIS ACT OF ESTRANGEMENT, OF GIVING BACK THE BRACELET, THE FINISHING OF THE RELATIONSHIP, THE ENDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HAD GONE ON FOR 17 YEARS PROVIDES A MOTIVE IN THIS CASE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, A MOTIVE TO KILL, THE FINAL ACT OF CONTROL. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON KEPT AN ACCOUNTING, AN AUDIT TRAIL OF ACTS OF VIOLENCE. WE -- WE HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO GO INTO THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. WHAT WE FOUND WHEN WE WENT IN THERE WAS THE LETTERS OF APOLOGY, NEWSPAPER ARTICLES RELATIVE TO THE 1989 INCIDENT WHEREIN THE DEFENDANT SUFFERED A CRIMINAL CONVICTION, FINALLY, FOR A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 273.5. THERE WERE PICTURES, PICTURES THAT WE HAVE AUTHENTICATED.
PICTURES THAT WE HAVE AUTHENTICATED THROUGH HER SISTER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. THERE ARE THREE PICTURES. DENISE BROWN HAS AUTHENTICATED TWO OF THOSE PICTURES AS BEING PICTURES THAT SHE TOOK OF INCIDENTS WHERE THE DEFENDANT BEAT THE VICTIM. THOSE PICTURES DEPICT A FACIAL BEATING AND THEN A VERY LARGE BRUISE UNDERNEATH THE ARM OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. SHE LITERALLY CREATED AN ACCOUNTING, AN AUDIT TRAIL OF ACTS OF VIOLENCE, BECAUSE SHE WANTED SOMEBODY TO REMEMBER WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HER LIFE, AND THAT IS THE ONLY WAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED. THERE WAS ALSO A WILL IN THAT SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX. THESE ACTS AND THESE EXPRESSIONS OF FEAR ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE SHE DID ACT IN CONFORMITY PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1240. THEY SHOW THAT SHE WAS AFRAID, AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO A JURY WHO IS GOING TO -- GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME REASONABLE INFERENCES WITH REGARD TO HOW THIS KILLING OCCURRED. YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED HERE. WE HAVE TO SHOW PREMEDITATION, ABILITY TO COMMIT THE MURDER. A JURY COULD MAKE SOME REASONABLE INFERENCES, COULD AND SHOULD MAKE SOME INFERENCES WITH REGARD TO THE STATE OF MIND OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WHY DID SHE GO OUTSIDE, WHAT TIME SHE GOES OUTSIDE, IF SHE WAS REALLY AFRAID, WHAT DID SHE DO?
THIS IS RELEVANT -- THIS IS RELEVANT TO HER CONDUCT AND TO HER GOING TO A SHELTER. HER FEAR IS RELEVANT. IT DOESN'T GO --
I MEANT 1250, I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, 1250 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. I SAID 1240 SO MUCH TODAY THAT IT IS JUST COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH. AND I WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE COUPLE OF CASES WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF -- OF ENTERING STATEMENTS OF A VICTIM'S FEAR. THERE IS ONE CASE IN 1963, WHICH IS STILL GOOD LAW, WHERE THE STATEMENT OF THE VICTIM THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD TRIED TO KILL HER PREVIOUSLY WAS USED TO SHOW THAT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE HOME IF SHE KNEW THAT SHE -- IF SHE KNEW THAT THE PERPETRATOR WOULD BE THERE. AND THEN THERE IS THE OTHER CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS PENN WHERE THE CONDUCT OF THE VICTIM AND HER EXPRESSIONS OF FEAR WERE RELEVANT TO HER LACK OF STRUGGLE IN A MURDER CASE. WE HAVE CITED THOSE CASES IN OUR BRIEF.
HOW DO YOU TIE THAT INTO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE RELEVANCE OF THE STATE OF MIND OF THE VICTIM?
OKAY. WE HAVE GOTTEN EVIDENCE TODAY FROM A SHELTER SHOWING THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WENT THERE. RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THAT SHE --
OBJECTION. SHE IS WRONG ABOUT THOSE FACTS. THAT DOESN'T SHOW THAT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS.
SHE CONTACTED A SHELTER AND THOSE STATEMENTS OF FEAR THAT SHE IS MAKING RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME PERIOD, AROUND THE KILLING WHEN SHE IS GOING TO THE SHELTER, THIS IS A VERY TIGHT TIME NEXUS, SHE IS MAKING STATEMENTS OF FEAR TO PEOPLE ABOUT TWO WEEKS --
BUT THE STATEMENTS OF FEAR ACTUALLY WERE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDER. THE CONTACT WITH THE SHELTER WAS FIVE DAYS BEFORE. THOSE STATEMENTS OF FEAR ARE RELATIVE TO HER CONDUCT AND HER FEAR AND THAT SHE HAD REASON TO BE AFRAID. IN ANY CASE, THOSE ACTS, THOSE ACTS OF GOING TO A SHELTER ARE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD COME IN. THEY SHOULD JUST COME IN, THAT SHE MADE THIS CONTACT, ACTS THAT STAND ALONE WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY STATEMENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVANT TO HER FEAR.
THE DEFENDANT ALSO MADE A STATEMENT TO JUDITHA BROWN SAYING THAT, "THE ONLY WOMAN THAT I WANT IN MY LIFE IS YOUR DAUGHTER AND IF I CAN'T HAVE HER," UMM -- "AND I CAN'T HAVE HER." AND IT SHOWS A DESIRE TO CONTROL. HE WANTS HER. AND ALTHOUGH IT IS A STATEMENT JUST STANDING LOAN, IT IS A SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT SHOWS HIS MOTIVE, HIS DESIRE TO CONTROL HER AND THAT IS WHAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS ABOUT, MOTIVE TO CONTROL. THERE IS A COMMENT THAT THE DEFENDANT MADE TO BILL THIBODEAU WITH REGARD TO THE SECRET WAY, THE SECRET WAY INTO THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED. THAT GOES TO OPPORTUNITY AND KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY MADE IN OUR BRIEF, BUT IT DOES GO TO OPPORTUNITY AND KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO COMMIT THE CRIME, AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT. HE ALSO HEARD A STATEMENT FROM THE DEFENDANT SAYING THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS RIPPING HIM UP AND THAT SHE WASN'T WORTH THE TROUBLE, INDICATING, I WOULD THINK, ALMOST A WILLINGNESS TO DISREGARD HER, SHE WASN'T WORTH THE TROUBLE, RIPPING ME UP, GET RID OF HER, SHE WASN'T WORTH THE TROUBLE. THE ACTS OF ABUSE THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED TO THE COURT SHOW A LONG AND CONSISTENT PATTERN OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS STANDING ALONE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ALL THAT SIGNIFICANT. SOME OF THEM OF COURSE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT, CERTAINLY WHEN POLICE ARE CALLED TO A HOME AND THERE HAS BEEN A BEAT UP IS VERY SIGNIFICANT, BUT STATEMENTS IS ISOLATED INCIDENTS, SEEMINGLY ISOLATED INCIDENTS TAKEN ALONE. MR. UELMEN HAS MADE -- MADE THE POINT THAT, WELL, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO A 1994 MURDER CASE? TAKEN ALONE THEY DON'T. TOGETHER WHAT THEY SHOW IS A COMPELLING PATTERN OF VIOLENCE. THEY SHOW THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS IN DANGER 17 YEARS AGO AND THAT PATTERN OF DANGER AND THAT PATTERN OF VIOLENCE ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN HER KILLING. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ADMIT THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR BRIEF. IF THE COURT WISHED TO QUESTION ME ABOUT SPECIFIC ACTS, I WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE DAY. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO PREPARE FOR THE COURT AND OPPOSING COUNSEL A LIST OF THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO ADMIT WITH A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL BASIS THAT YOU FEEL COMPELS THE COURT TO ADMIT THEM, AND I WANT YOU TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO HOW THE VICTIM'S STATE OF MIND AND HER STATEMENTS ARE RELEVANT TO ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS NOT CLEAR IN MY MIND AT THIS POINT.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH EVIDENCE ITEM WE ARE ON AT THIS POINT, BUT I DO HAVE A BINDER HERE. IT CONTAINS MANY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ALLUDING TO HERE TODAY, AND I'M NOT IN THE POSITION TO TAKE THESE BACK TO THE EVIDENCE LOCKER. AND SO THAT I DON'T SOMEHOW GET CAUGHT UP IN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THESE AND DELIVER THESE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THE CLERK, IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR.
WHY DON'T WE DO THIS THEN: FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONTINUING THE HEARING IN AN ORDERLY MANNER, I WILL DIRECT THE CONTENTS OF THAT ENTIRE NOTEBOOK TO BE MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER FOR THIS HEARING ONLY.
THIS IS JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CLERK TAKING POSSESSION OF THE NOTEBOOK THIS EVENING. WE WILL RETURN IT TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING.
ADDITIONALLY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE TO THE COURT AND COUNSEL, AND PUT THEM ON NOTICE, THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT AND SO WE WILL BE MOVING, WITH LEAVE OF COURT, TO AMEND OUR PAPERS TOMORROW AFTERNOON ALLEGING ANOTHER INCIDENT, IF NOT TWO ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
THIS MURDER TOOK 17 YEARS TO COMMIT.
IF I CAN'T HAVE HER, NO ONE WILL.
SHE YELLED OUT TO HIM, 'HE'S GOING TO KILL ME.'
SHE BLURTED OUT, 'YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.'
WOMEN HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEIR ABUSE HAS BEEN KEPT IN THE SHADOWS.