BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY, MR. UELMEN. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MR. GORDON, MISS BODIN AND MR. GOLDBERG. MR. UELMEN, WE WERE AT ITEM NO. 16 ON THE CHART PREPARED BY STEVEN GOLUB.
RESPECTFULLY, MAY WE JUST BRIEFLY INTERRUPT FOR A MOMENT? THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDENDUM TO THEIR STATEMENT. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE A WITNESS BY THE NAME OF DONALD G. DUTTON, AND HIS CURRICULUM VITAE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE AND HE IS PRESENT IN THE COURT. WE WOULD LIKE HIM TO REMAIN DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING AND I DO HAVE THE CURRICULUM VITAE RIGHT NOW. WOULD THE COURT LIKE TO SEE IT?
WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION THAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IN TERMS OF ADDING INTO THEIR ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF ABUSE, THERE WAS INFORMATION TODAY THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COURT FROM SOJOURN AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT IN OUR MOTION BEFORE THE COURT. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS ADDRESS IT FACTUALLY AND THEN PERHAPS SAVE THE LEGAL ARGUMENT SOMEWHERE TOWARD THE END SO COUNSEL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE LEGALLY ON THAT ISSUE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IF WE GO BACK TO THE CHRONOLOGY -- AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT 59 DISCREET INCIDENTS, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT A CHRONOLOGY THAT TRIES TO PUT EVERYTHING IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, SOME OF WHICH DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO ANY INCIDENT AT ALL, BUT IS SIMPLY AN EVENT, SUCH AS THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE INITIATED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN JANUARY OF '92 -- I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THAT, WE ASSUME, WILL BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AND IS REALLY TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN TERMS OF ANY CHARACTER EVIDENCE PROVING ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE EVENTS IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. GOING BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF, WHICH WAS ITEM NO. 17, I THINK HERE WE SIMPLY HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE -- THE PROSECUTION HAS KIND OF PULLED OUT ALL THE STOPS, GONE TO THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS AND ATTEMPTED TO GATHER TOGETHER ANYONE WHO COULD EVER SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT MR. SIMPSON IN THE COURSE OF THE LAST 17 YEARS. ALFRED ACOSTA WAS SIMPLY THE DRIVER OF AN AUTOMOBILE WHO TOOK MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE HOME ONE EVENING. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT EVENING WAS. WE ARE TOLD IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANY TIME IN 1988 OR 1989, SO WE HAVE A SPECTRUM OF 300 -- 720 DAYS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK FROM. APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO MR. ACOSTA'S STATEMENT, THEY HAD BEEN DRINKING, AND WHILE HE IS DRIVING THE CAR ALONG, ALLEGEDLY, HE BELIEVES THAT MR. SIMPSON HIT MR. -- MRS. SIMPSON IN THE BACK OF THE LIMOUSINE. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR US IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN JUNE OF 1994? WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT ANY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH IN THIS CASE? AND TO SAY TO MR. SIMPSON AT THIS POINT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF EXPLANATION OR DEFENSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BACK OF AN AUTOMOBILE EIGHT -- SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED, IS AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK FACING THE DEFENSE, AND I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE EXTENT TO WHICH MUCH OF WHAT IS IN THIS CHRONOLOGY IS OF THE SAME NATURE. ITEM 18. HERE WE ARE TOLD OF AN INCIDENT OF WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS VERBAL ABUSE IN A BAR. AND THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT VERBAL ABUSE. VERBAL ABUSE IS A NICE EUPHEMISM FOR AN ARGUMENT, AND TO SAY THAT EVERY TIME A MARRIED COUPLE GETS INTO AN ARGUMENT, THAT IS ABUSE OR VERBAL ABUSE, BECAUSE THEY HURL CRUEL WORDS AT EACH OTHER AND THAT SOMEHOW BECOMES RELEVANT TO PROVE SOMETHING IN A SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL CASE, RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION FOR THE COURT. AND THE QUESTION IS NOT JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DICTA IN PEOPLE VERSUS ZACK WHICH SAYS ONLY PHYSICAL ASSAULTS BECOME ADMISSIBLE EVEN UNDER THE BROADEST CONCEPTION OF THE RULE IMAGINABLE, BUT IT ALSO IS RELEVANT BECAUSE ABUSE IS DEFINED AND IT IS DEFINED WITHIN THE EVIDENCE CODE. SECTION 1107 USES THE WORD "ABUSE," AND IT SAYS:
"WHEN WE USE THE WORD 'ABUSE' WE WANT IT TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS SECTION 6203 OF THE FAMILY CODE." AND HERE IS HOW SECTION 6203 OF THE FAMILY CODE DEFINES ABUSE. IT SAYS:
"'ABUSE' MEANS INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE BODILY INJURY OR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR TO PLACE A PERSON IN REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO THAT PERSON OR TO ANOTHER." SO THERE IS THE DEFINITION, THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF ABUSE THAT IS INCORPORATED IN THE EVIDENCE CODE, AND IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT VERBAL ABUSE OR ARGUMENTS IN TERMS OF THEIR BEING CHARACTERIZED AS ABUSE, MUCH LESS IN TERMS OF THEIR BEING RELEVANT TO PROVE ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO BE DISPUTED IN THIS CASE. THIS INCIDENT IN 1989, AGAIN WE ARE GIVEN AN INCIDENT WITHOUT ANY INDICATION OF WHEN IT TOOK PLACE, OTHER THAN WITHIN -- SOMETIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF A YEAR, APPARENTLY INVOLVED AN EVENT IN WHICH SIX DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE GETTING IN AND OUT OF AN AUTOMOBILE, AND IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A REAL ISSUE THAT SOMEHOW AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO DRIVE A CAR AND WHO IS GOING TO GET IN WHICH OF TWO DIFFERENT CARS PROVES SOMETHING ABOUT HOW THIS MURDER TOOK PLACE IN JUNE OF 1994, THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND IN THIS COURTROOM LITIGATING AMONG SIX DIFFERENT VERSIONS. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT VERSIONS FROM DIFFERENT WITNESSES OF WHAT TOOK PLACE IN TERMS OF WHO PUSHED WHO AND WHO GOT IN WHAT CAR AND WHO DROVE AWAY IN THAT CAR. AND THE QUESTION SIMPLY IS WHERE DOES THAT GET US? WHAT DOES IT PROVE IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12, 1994? ITEM NO. 19 IS AGAIN A SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF RANK HEARSAY, OF SOMETHING THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY SAID TO SOMEBODY ELSE IN 1991, AND AGAIN WE HAVE NO PLAUSIBLE EVEN SUGGESTION OF ANY HEARSAY EXCEPTION THAT WOULD MAKE THAT ADMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. ITEM 20. ITEM 20, THE SOURCE IDENTIFIED IS EDDIE REYNOZA, AN ACTOR APPARENTLY WHO ALLEGES HE WAS ON A SET WITH MR. SIMPSON IN MAY OF 1991, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT CARS AND MR. SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY SAID THAT IF HE FOUND ANY OF HIS WIFE'S BOYFRIENDS DRIVING ONE OF HIS CARS HE WOULD CUT THEIR HEADS OFF -- CUT THEIR FUCKING HEADS OFF. OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE A REAL CREDIBILITY ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID. MR. REYNOZA APPARENTLY IS ONE OF THOSE CHARACTERS ON THE FRINGES OF THIS CASE WHO IS ADVANCING HIS OWN FILM CAREER BY ASSIGNING HIMSELF A STARING ROLE IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS O.J. SIMPSON, AND APPARENTLY HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS IN OTHER CASES AS WELL, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL FIGHT ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. REYNOZA. BUT BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO THAT FIGHT, I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF RELEVANCE. I MEAN, EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT A STATEMENT OF THIS NATURE WAS MADE IN MAY OF 1991, THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON IS SAYING HE DOESN'T WANT BOYFRIENDS DRIVING HIS -- HIS WIFE'S CAR OR ONE OF HIS CARS, WHAT DOES THAT TELL US OR WHAT DOES THAT PROVE IN TERMS OF A MOTIVE FOR THIS MURDER? I MEAN, IS THE PROSECUTION SAYING THAT THE REASON THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE MURDERED WAS BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS DRIVING ONE OF MR. SIMPSON'S CARS? WHAT DOES IT TELL US ABOUT THE INTENT WITH WHICH THIS MURDER WAS COMMITTED OR THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR? IT TELLS US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. WHAT IT TELLS US IS IF WE WILL BELIEVE IT, MR. SIMPSON ON OCCASION WOULD USE THE WORD "FUCK" AND ON OTHER OCCASIONS HE WOULD GET ANGRY. IS THAT THE KIND OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH WE WANT THIS JURY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A MAN SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF MURDER? 21. AGAIN THIS JUST -- WE'LL CONCEDE THAT. MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE DID INITIATE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN JANUARY OF 1992 AND WE MIGHT NOTE THAT IT WAS AN UNUSUALLY AMICABLE DIVORCE. THE DIARY THAT WE HAVE REFERRED TO THAT MRS. SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY WROTE OUT WAS NEVER USED. IT WAS NEVER OFFERED IN EVIDENCE IN THAT PROCEEDING. IN FACT, MRS. SIMPSON NEVER TESTIFIED IN THAT PROCEEDING. AN AGREEMENT WAS WORKED OUT. THERE WERE NEVER ANY RESTRAINING ORDERS. WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WAS OBVIOUSLY A BUMPY MARRIAGE WITH SOME HIGH POINTS AND SOME LOW POINTS, I THINK IT IS QUITE REMARKABLE THAT IT WAS RESOLVED IN AS AMICABLE A WAY AS IT WAS. ITEM 22. AGAIN WE HAVE A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS THAT ALL TIE INTO THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS, AND THAT WITNESS IS KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, AND THE EVIDENCE APPARENTLY IS GOING TO SHOW THAT IN EARLY 1992, WHILE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE, SHE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH THIS MAN, KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, WHO WAS THE MANAGER OF THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT AND WHOM SHE HAD MET IN ASPEN. AND THE KEY INCIDENT HERE IS NO. 24. IN APRIL OF 1992 THE PROSECUTION WILL CONTEND THAT MR. SIMPSON VISITED THE PREMISES WHERE MRS. SIMPSON WAS THEN RESIDING AND THROUGH THE FRONT WINDOW, FROM A VANTAGE POINT EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ANYONE STANDING ON THE FRONT SIDEWALK, HE ACTUALLY OBSERVED MRS. SIMPSON AND MR. ZLOMSOWITCH ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY. AND WHAT HAPPENED? NOTHING. HE DID NOT INTERRUPT THEM. HE RETURNED TO THE PREMISES THE NEXT DAY, EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN ABOUT THIS ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE WHILE HIS CHILDREN WERE ASLEEP UPSTAIRS AND SUGGESTED THAT THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY WAS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS CHILDREN. HE ACTUALLY SHOOK HANDS WITH MR. ZLOMSOWITCH AND EXPRESSED NO HARD FEELINGS. WHAT IS THAT GOING TO PROVE? I MEAN, IF THE THEORY THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO PRESENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS MURDER ON JUNE 12, 1994, WAS THAT THIS WAS SOME SORT OF ACT OF RAGE INVOLVING JEALOUSY, THEN THIS INCIDENT IN 1992 REALLY UNDERCUTS THAT THEORY. IN EFFECT IT SHOWS THAT MR. SIMPSON, EVEN OBSERVING HIS WIFE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH ANOTHER MAN, DID NOT BECOME BALLISTIC, DID NOT INTERRUPT THEM, DID NOT PHYSICALLY ASSAULT ANYONE. IN FACT, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO ZLOMSOWITCH INVOLVES NO ALLEGATION OF ANY PHYSICAL ASSAULT WHATSOEVER. IT IS SIMPLY A REMARKABLY CIVIL REACTION TO A RATHER OUTRAGEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE. AND IN TERMS OF INFERRING FROM THAT ANY INTENT, MOTIVE OR IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR OF THE 1994 MURDER, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T CUT IT. IT DOESN'T GET US ANYWHERE IN TERMS OF RESOLVING THE ISSUES WE HAVE TO RESOLVE IN THIS CASE. THE ITEMS NO. 22 AND 23. WITH RESPECT TO MR. ZLOMSOWITCH TESTIFYING THAT ON PRIOR OCCASIONS HE HAD BEEN AT A RESTAURANT AND OBSERVED MR. SIMPSON AT THE SAME RESTAURANT AND MR. SIMPSON ON ONE OCCASION TOLD HIM THAT MRS. SIMPSON WAS STILL HIS WIFE AND ON ANOTHER OCCASION ALLEGEDLY STARED AT HIM, AGAIN, JUST ASSUMING THAT THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE, WHAT RELEVANCE DO THEY HAVE? WHAT DO THEY TELL US IN TERMS OF ANY MOTIVE OR INTENT REGARDING THE 1994 MURDER? THEY MAY TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT THE 1992 INCIDENT IN WHICH MR. ZLOMSOWITCH WAS ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH MRS. SIMPSON, BUT THEY DON'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON TWO YEARS LATER IN 1994. ITEM 26. IN OCTOBER OF 1992, MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON WERE LEGALLY DIVORCED. AGAIN, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT. IT REALLY HAS LIMITED RELEVANCE IN TERMS OF THE EVENTS OF THIS CASE. NO. 27. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THIS LIST WHERE MR. SIMPSON REPORTEDLY CALLS MRS. SIMPSON'S MOTHER, JUDITHA BROWN IS THE MOTHER OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND HAS CONVERSATIONS WITH HER ABOUT THE STATUS OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MRS. SIMPSON. THIS IS WHILE THE DIVORCE IS GOING ON. IT DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS AT ALL UNUSUAL THAT THERE WOULD BE THIS KIND OF FAMILY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AND ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE PARTIES THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY THOSE PROCEEDINGS, BUT AGAIN, WHAT RELEVANCE DOES IT HAVE? WHERE DOES IT GET US IN TERMS OF ESTABLISHING ANY MOTIVE OR INTENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS -- TO THIS MURDER? IT SIMPLY EXPLAINS THE PARTY'S REACTION TO THE DIVORCE THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH, AND THOSE REACTIONS APPEAR TO BE QUITE NORMAL, QUITE NATURAL AND REALLY PROVIDE NO ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY -- ANY MOTIVE OR INTENT. AGAIN, ITEM 28. NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS. MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON DID ATTEMPT A RECONCILIATION BEGINNING IN MARCH OF 1993. ITEM 29. AGAIN WE ARE BACK TO ALLEGATIONS OF VERBAL ABUSE, THAT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT OUTSIDE THE CALIFORNIA SUSHI BAR, AND AGAIN THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS ARGUMENT. IN FACT, FAYE RESNICK AND CHRISTIAN REICHARDT, THE ONLY TWO WITNESSES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED HERE, THEMSELVES HAD VERY DIFFERENT VERSIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. THE WITHDRAWAL OF FAYE RESNICK AS A WITNESS I THINK RAISES ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT OFFERING THIS IN EVIDENCE IF THERE ARE DIFFERING VERSIONS, AND THE PROSECUTION IS ONLY GOING TO PRESENT ONE, WITHOUT PRESENTING THE OTHER WITNESS WHO HAD A DIFFERENT VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. I THINK THAT RAISES A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO SORT OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. BUT ONE THING WE KNOW DID NOT HAPPEN. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL ABUSE. THIS WAS AN ARGUMENT TAKING PLACE IN FRONT OF A RESTAURANT. THE PARTIES GOT IN A CAR AND DROVE AWAY. AND WHAT DOES THAT TELL US IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN JUNE OF 1994? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ITEM 30 AND 31 RELATE TO THE TESTIMONY OF TWO NEIGHBORS WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR TO MRS. SIMPSON BEFORE SHE MOVED TO THE BUNDY ADDRESS. THIS IS ON THE GRETNA GREEN ADDRESS, AND THESE NEIGHBORS REPORT SEEING MR. SIMPSON OUTSIDE THE PREMISES LOOKING IN THE WINDOWS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S AND THE TIMING FROM THEIR STATEMENTS AS TO WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE IS AT THE TIME OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. ZLOMSOWITCH, SO WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS BEING DESCRIBED HERE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1993, BUT RELATES TO THE SAME INCIDENT, NO. 24, THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN MR. ZLOMSOWITCH'S TESTIMONY. WHY WAS MR. SIMPSON NEAR THE PREMISES OF MRS. SIMPSON? I MEAN, WHAT DOES THIS PROVE, THE FACT THAT HE WOULD OCCASIONALLY BE SEEN AT THE HOME WHERE MRS. SIMPSON WAS LIVING? I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DIVORCE IN 1992, THEY WERE AWARDED JOINT CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN, AND THE CHILDREN WERE WITH MRS. SIMPSON, SO OBVIOUSLY HE WOULD HAVE FREQUENT OCCASION TO VISIT THE PREMISES WHERE MRS. SIMPSON WAS LIVING, TO VISIT HIS CHILDREN. THE COLBYS ALSO REPORTED, AND THIS IS IN YOUR SUMMARY, THAT THEY OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WOULD OFTEN LEAVE FLOWERS AT THE DOOR OF MRS. SIMPSON'S HOME. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN JUNE OF 1994, THAT ON PRIOR OCCASIONS, WHEN THEY WERE ATTEMPTING A RECONCILIATION IN THEIR MARRIAGE, MR. SIMPSON DELIVERED FLOWERS PERSONALLY TO THE HOME OF MRS. SIMPSON? IT DOESN'T GET US VERY FAR IN TERMS OF RESOLVING ANY ISSUES IN THIS CASE. ITEM 32 IS APPARENTLY THE SAME AS ITEM 35. I MEAN, IT JUST REPORTS SOME GENERAL STATEMENTS BY VARIOUS PEOPLE DESCRIBING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1993 911 INCIDENT, THAT MR. SIMPSON BARGED INTO MRS. SIMPSON'S HOME AND YELLED AT HER, THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT NARCOTIC USAGE BY KATO KAELIN, THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE ZLOMSOWITCH INCIDENT. ALL OF THAT APPARENTLY RELATES TO THE OCTOBER, 1993, INCIDENT THAT IS ITEMIZED AS ITEM 35, AND I WILL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT. ITEM 33, AGAIN MORE UNCORROBORATED RANK HEARSAY, JUST AN ALLEGATION THAT AT SOME POINT IN 1993, AND WE ARE NOT TOLD WHEN, MRS. SIMPSON MADE A STATEMENT TO SOME OTHER PERSON ABOUT HER BELIEF THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS -- WAS FOLLOWING HER. THAT IS HEARSAY. WE CAN'T CROSS-EXAMINE IT. AND ANY STATE OF MIND IN 1993, MUCH LESS IN 1994 WHEN THIS HAPPENED, IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. SO THERE IS NO REASON WHY THAT CAN EVEN BE ADMITTED UNDER THE -- UNDER THE HEARSAY RULE. 34, WE ARE NOT EVEN GIVEN A SOURCE. THIS IS JUST AN OUTRIGHT ALLEGATION IN THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE. WE BELIEVE THE SOURCE IS ALSO HEARSAY. APPARENTLY THIS IS SOMETHING THE PROSECUTORS PULLED OUT OF FAYE RESNICK'S BOOK TO BOLSTER THEIR RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION, AND MISS RESNICK APPARENTLY, WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE A WITNESS, WAS REPORTING SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID TO HER BY THE -- BY THE VICTIM. SO NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE A HEARSAY STATEMENT, BUT THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY HEARD THAT STATEMENT ISN'T GOING TO BE A WITNESS, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WORRY MUCH ABOUT ITEM 34. NOW, ITEM 35 BRINGS US TO THE 911 INCIDENT THAT EVERYBODY WAS TREATED TO HEARING IN GRAPHIC DETAIL WITH THE RELEASE OF THE 911 TAPES. I'M ASSUMING YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT 911 CALL, AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD POINT WITH WHICH TO ADDRESS THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF 911 TAPES AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. OF COURSE THE TAPE ITSELF IS HEARSAY. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE DECLARANT OF ANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE COURSE OF THIS -- OF THIS RECORDING, BUT THE -- THE PROSECUTION ALLEGES THAT IT COMES WITHIN THE WELL-DEFINED EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE FOR SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS. NOW, THE REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENTS COMING IN UNDER THE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REALLY GO TO THE ASSUMPTION OF RELIABILITY THAT COMES FROM PEOPLE SPEAKING UNDER THE STRESS OF EXCITEMENT. OF COURSE THE -- THE IDEA BEHIND THIS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE IS THAT WHEN -- WHEN SOMEONE IS NOT REFLECTING ON WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, THEY ARE JUST REACTING, THEY ARE JUST SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY ARE OBSERVING AT THE SAME TIME THOSE THINGS ARE GOING ON AND THOSE THINGS ARE EXCITING, THAT PEOPLE WILL HAVE LESS OF A TENDENCY TO EXAGGERATE, TO PREVARICATE, THAT WE CAN COUNT ON THESE STATEMENTS AS BEING UNUSUALLY RELIABLE; THEREFORE, WE WILL ADMIT THEM WITHOUT THE NORMAL SAFEGUARD OF ALLOWING CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND ORDINARILY THESE KIND OF STATEMENTS ARE -- ARE VERY BRIEF, VERY REACTIVE KIND OF STATEMENTS, AND OF COURSE THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, THAT IS WE HAVE A 14-MINUTE CONVERSATION, A CONVERSATION IN WHICH THE 911 OPERATOR ASKS A NUMBER OF VERY POINTED QUESTIONS AND GETS VERY REFLECTIVE, POINTED RESPONSES. MANY OF THESE RESPONSES NOT ONLY HAVE PROBLEMS OF BEING HEARSAY, BUT THEY ARE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. FOR EXAMPLE, "HE IS CRAZY, HE IS FUCKING GOING NUTS, HE IS GOING TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF ME." I MEAN, THESE ARE JUST EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION THAT ARE NOT REACTIONS TO ANYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING OR DESCRIPTIVE OF ANYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. I MEAN, THE ONE THING WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT OF OCTOBER, 1993, AND THAT IS THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL ABUSE. AT NO TIME IN ANY OF THESE EVENTS DID MR. SIMPSON EVER STRIKE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, NOR IS THERE ANY ALLEGATION THAT HE THREATENED TO STRIKE HER, NOR IS THERE ANY EXPRESSION ON HER PART THAT SHE IS CONCERNED THAT HE IS ABOUT TO STRIKE HER. THE CONCERN AGAIN APPEARS TO BE, WELL, WHO IS GOING TO PAY TO FIX THE BROKEN DOOR THAT HE CAME THROUGH AND I'M WORRIED THAT HE IS GOING TO WAKE UP THE KIDS. THOSE ARE THE MOST VEHEMENT CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE COURSE OF THIS -- OF THIS CONVERSATION. AND OF COURSE THE REAL QUESTION WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THIS COMING IN AS EVIDENCE AS A PRIOR INCIDENT IS WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12, 1994? WHAT IS DESCRIBED HERE IS A VERY LOUD CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, IN WHICH THEY ARGUED AND THE ARGUMENT WAS -- WAS OF COURSE A VERY PUBLIC ONE IN THE SENSE THAT POLICE OFFICERS RESPONDED, CALMED THEM DOWN. MR. KAELIN WAS PRESENT DURING -- DURING MOST OF THE ARGUMENT. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US IN TERMS OF EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12, 1994? IT TELLS US NOTHING, BUT THE POTENTIAL FOR PREJUDICE, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY HEARING THIS TAPE, IS ENORMOUS, BECAUSE WE CAN, JUST FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT WHEN THIS TAPE WAS PLAYED ON EVERY TELEVISION SET IN THE COUNTRY, AND REPLAYED AND PLAYED AGAIN, THAT PEOPLE THOUGHT WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS A PHYSICAL ABUSE, THAT WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS MR. SIMPSON BARGING INTO THE HOUSE AND PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING MRS. SIMPSON. AND WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE, THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN AN INCIDENT OF PHYSICAL ABUSE. WHAT IT IS IS A VERY LOUD ARGUMENT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE, AN ARGUMENT APPARENTLY ABOUT WHETHER BOTH OF THEM HAD CONFORMED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT PICTURES OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN PRIOR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS WOULD NOT BE DISPLAYED, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT. DOES THAT SUGGEST A MOTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO MURDER SOMEONE A YEAR LATER OR EIGHT MONTHS LATER? HARDLY. ITEM 36 AND 37 ARE BOTH AGAIN EXAMPLES OF HEARSAY, ALLEGATIONS THAT MRS. SIMPSON SAID TO OTHER THIRD PARTIES THAT SHE BELIEVED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS -- WAS FOLLOWING HER AND SHE HAD REASON TO BE AFRAID OF HIM. AND AGAIN, NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY OF THIS, NO SUGGESTION OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. I GUESS, WHAT THE SUGGESTION WILL BE, THAT THIS PROVES SOMEHOW STATE OF MIND. AND AGAIN WE ASK: WELL, WHAT RELEVANCE DOES MRS. SIMPSON'S STATE OF MIND IN 1993 HAVE IN THIS CASE? WHAT RELEVANCE DOES HER STATE OF MIND ON THE VERY NIGHT THAT SHE WAS HEARD HAVE IN THIS CASE? AND THE ANSWER IS NONE, JUST AS THAT ANSWER WAS GIVEN IN THE IRELAND CASE AND IN THE ARCEGA CASE. THERE IS NO RELEVANCE. THAT STATE OF MIND IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. ITEM 38. NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS. IN JANUARY OF 1994 MRS. SIMPSON DID MOVE FROM THE GRETNA GREEN HOUSE TO THE PREMISES ON BUNDY DRIVE. ITEM 39. WE ARE TOLD THAT MR. KELLER WILL TESTIFY THAT WHILE HE WAS HAVING COFFEE AT STARBUCK'S WITH MRS. SIMPSON AND A NUMBER OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING RON GOLDMAN, THAT HE OBSERVED MR. SIMPSON DRIVING BY. MR. SIMPSON STOPPED HIS CAR AND NICOLE WALKED OVER AND SPOKE TO HIM IN THE AUTOMOBILE. HE CHARACTERIZED WHAT IS GOING ON AS SOME SHOUTING. AGAIN, EVEN THAT OF COURSE WILL BE DISPUTED, BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS SHOUTING, WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? THAT MR. SIMPSON SPOKE TO HIS WIFE IN A LOUD VOICE ON AN OCCASION WHEN HE HAPPENED TO BE DRIVING BY WHILE SHE IS SITTING HAVING COFFEE AT STARBUCK'S? WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? DOES THAT SUGGEST A MOTIVE FOR A MURDER? DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT ASSUMING MR. SIMPSON IS -- IS THE MURDERER, THAT HE HAD A PARTICULAR INTENT OR PREMEDITATION? DOES IT SUGGEST EVEN THAT HE WAS IN FACT THE MURDERER? DOES IT ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY? AND OF COURSE IT DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS. IT IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT. ITEM 40. AGAIN A CONVERSATION WITH -- WITH MRS. SIMPSON'S MOTHER AND AGAIN HEARSAY WHICH REALLY -- AS TO WHICH WE HAVE NO PLAUSIBLE -- I'M SORRY. THIS IS NOT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE MOTHER, BUT BETWEEN MRS. SIMPSON AND HER MOTHER, SO IT IS HEARSAY, IT DOESN'T COME WITHIN ANY RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. ITEM 41 IS AGAIN ANOTHER CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND MRS. SIMPSON'S MOTHER. NO HEARSAY PROBLEM OF COURSE SINCE IT IS A STATEMENT OF THE -- OF THE DEFENDANT. THE REAL PROBLEM IS RELEVANCE. WHAT RELEVANCE DOES IT HAVE THAT IN THE COURSE OF AN ATTEMPT TO WORK OUT A RECONCILIATION MR. SIMPSON SAYS TO HIS FORMER WIFE'S MOTHER THAT SHE IS THE ONLY WOMAN HE WANTS IN HIS LIFE AND HE CAN'T HAVE HER, IF IN FACT THAT WAS SAID, AND AGAIN, THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE CONFLICTING VERSIONS OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID. BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THIS WAS WHAT WAS SAID, DOES THAT ESTABLISH A MOTIVE FOR A MURDER? WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 42, THE TESTIMONY OF BILL THIBODEAU, WHO AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES WHO HAS BEEN ON TELEVISION, SO HE WON'T BE PRESENTING THIS STORY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURTROOM, HE HAS MADE THE ROUNDS OF THE T.V. SHOWS, AND THERE IS A SERIOUS QUESTION GOING TO BE RAISED ABOUT -- ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY, ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF HIS REPORTS OF WHAT WAS SAID, BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING THAT HE ALLEGEDLY SAYS MR. SIMPSON SAID, IT DOESN'T OFFER ANY ELUCIDATION IN TERMS OF A POTENTIAL MOTIVE. IT IS SIMPLY RELEVANT. IT GETS US NOWHERE IN TERMS OF RESOLVING THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE IN THIS CASE. ITEM 43, AGAIN THIS IS FAYE RESNICK, AND THERE MAY BE OTHER WITNESSES OTHER THAN FAYE RESNICK WHO WILL DESCRIBE AN INCIDENT APPARENTLY IN MEXICO WHILE THEY ARE ON VACATION WHERE MR. SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY RIDICULES HIS WIFE'S FEAR OF FROGS AND POINTS OUT THE IRONY THAT HE IS NOW STARING IN A NEW T.V. SERIES CALLED FROGMAN. IS THIS A MOTIVE? WHAT DOES THIS TELL US? IT TELLS US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS IN ANY WAY RELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE IN THIS CASE, SO OUR OBJECTION IS SIMPLY THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT. ITEM 44, ITEM 49, ITEM 51 ARE ALL ITEMS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO NO ONE OTHER THAN FAYE RESNICK, AND THE ANNOUNCED INTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION THAT THEY WILL NOT CALL FAYE RESNICK SHOULD DISPOSE OF THESE MATTERS, SINCE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH ANY OF THESE ITEMS COULD BE -- COULD BE PROVEN. AND OF COURSE THAT IS TRUE OF 45, TOO; 44, 45, 49 AND 51. ITEM 46 AND 48 ARE BOTH HEARSAY. IN ONE CASE WE ARE TOLD TO WHOM THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY MISS SIMPSON, AND IN THE OTHER CASE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW TO WHOM THEY WERE TOLD, ALTHOUGH WE SUSPECT IT IS AGAIN FAYE RESNICK. IT IS JUST RANK HEARSAY. WHAT DOES IT PROVE? STATE OF MIND IS THE ONLY POTENTIAL EXCEPTION THAT COMES TO MIND, AND STATE OF MIND SIMPLY ISN'T AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. ITEM 47, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT. THE ATTEMPT AT A RECONCILIATION DID END IN MAY OF 1994. ITEM 50. WE ARE TOLD ABOUT A LETTER ALLEGEDLY FROM MR. SIMPSON'S ATTORNEY, SKIP TAFT, RESTATING A THREAT TO INFORM THE IRS OF SOME DIFFICULTY WITH RESPECT TO A DEDUCTION WITH REGARD TO THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE BY MRS. SIMPSON. I HOPE YOUR HONOR WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LETTER, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT THE LETTER SAYS OR IMPLIES. IT IS NOT A LETTER FROM MR. TAFT; IT IS A LETTER FROM MR. SIMPSON, SO THERE IS NO HEARSAY PROBLEM. IT IS ON HIS OWN LETTERHEAD AND HE EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT MISREPRESENTATIONS BEING MADE IN WHICH IN ORDER TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF TAXES, MRS. SIMPSON WAS CLAIMING THAT MR. SIMPSON'S HOME WAS HER PRINCIPAL ADDRESS. AND THIS SIMPLY INFORMS HER THAT THAT IS GOING TO PRESENT SOME COMPLICATIONS AND THAT SHE SHOULD MAKE OTHER ARRANGEMENTS. THERE WERE NO THREATS IN THIS LETTER. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO USE THIS IN ANY WAY TO GET HER TO DO ANYTHING. IT SIMPLY STATED WHAT WAS AN OBVIOUS FACT, THAT THAT KIND OF MISREPRESENTATION COULD PRESENT PROBLEMS FOR BOTH OF THEM, AND SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE, AND AGAIN WE WOULD ASK WHAT RELEVANCE THAT HAS IN TERMS OF ANY OF THE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE TO LITIGATE IN THIS CASE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12? ITEMS 52 AND 53. AGAIN RANK HEARSAY. EVERY ONE OF THESE ITEMS IS SOMETHING THAT MRS. SIMPSON ALLEGEDLY SAID TO SOME THIRD PARTY. IN ONE CASE DENISE BROWN, IN THE OTHER CASE, BETSY ROCKETT, AND THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE? THESE ARE NOT STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE CROSS-EXAMINED AND STATE OF MIND IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. ITEM 54, THE SAME THING. MORE HEARSAY. THIS TIME THE RECIPIENT OF THE HEARSAY WAS ALLEGEDLY CORA FICHMAN AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOW GETTING CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE MURDER, THAT SOMEHOW THAT MAKES STATE OF MIND MORE RELEVANT, WE WOULD SIMPLY UNDERLINE THE HOLDINGS IN THE CASES IN IRELAND AND ARCEGA DEALING WITH STATEMENTS MADE VIRTUALLY THE SAME DAY THAT THE MURDER TOOK PLACE AND THE COURT SAID IT IS STILL NOT AN ISSUE IN THE MURDER CASE AS TO WHAT THE VICTIM'S STATE OF MIND WAS, AND THAT IS TRUE IN THIS CASE. NOBODY IS GOING TO MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S OR RONALD GOLDMAN'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME THEY WERE MURDERED. ITEMS 55, 56 AND 57. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT ANY OF THOSE. THOSE ALL RELATE TO THE EVENTS ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 12, EXCEPT IT IS NOT QUITE ACCURATE TO SAY THEY SEPARATELY ATTENDED A DANCE RECITAL. THEY WERE BOTH AT THE RECITAL. THEY WERE SEATED WITHIN TWO ROWS OF EACH OTHER. THE REFERENCE TO THE DEFENDANT NOT BEING INVITED TO DINNER, THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T ASK TO BE INVITED TO DINNER. THE RELEVANCE OF THAT REALLY ESCAPES US, AND OF COURSE THE MURDER OCCURRED LATER THAT EVENING. ITEM 58 AND 59 AGAIN RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. SIMPSON AT THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE ARE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD SERIOUSLY CONTEND THAT IN ANY WAY THESE WERE AN ADMISSION, THAT THE PEOPLE HE WAS SPEAKING TO IN INDICATING THE -- THE GRIEF THAT HE WAS EXPERIENCING AND SAYING THAT HE LOVED HIS WIFE IS SOMEHOW IMPLIEDLY AN ADMISSION THAT HE KILLED HER. THAT IS JUST SIMPLY STRETCHING THINGS BEYOND ANY CREDULITY AND SIMILARLY. THE CALL THAT HE MADE TO THE FAMILY WHEN HE WAS RETURNING FROM CHICAGO DID NOT IMPLY ANY SORT OF ADMISSION AND WE ARE JUST RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS HAS ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL IN TERMS OF -- OF WHAT PURPOSE -- THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS BEING OFFERED. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ADDED EVENTS, AS I INDICATED EARLIER. THE CHALLENGE TO MR. SIMPSON TO EXPLAIN HIS WHOLE LIFE GROWS DAY BY DAY, AND WE NOW HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES, ADDENDUM TO THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO TWO NEIGHBORS WHO IN 1978 OR 1979 -- BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS SEVEN YEARS BEFORE MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON WERE EVEN MARRIED, THIS IS WHILE THEY WERE LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED -- TWO NEIGHBORS, THROUGH THE BEDROOM WALL, REPORT THAT THEY HEARD A VERY LOUD ARGUMENT AND THAT ON A SUBSEQUENT OCCASION THEY OBSERVED MRS. SIMPSON HAD BLACK EYES.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT. IT -- CERTAINLY IT HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER TO ANYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE SIXTEEN YEARS LATER ON JUNE 12 OF 1994. IT CERTAINLY CAN'T BE SUGGESTED THAT THIS OFFERS ANY THEORY OF A MOTIVE OR PROVES INTENT OR PROVES THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR OF A MURDER SIXTEEN YEARS LATER. AND AUTHENTICATING THIS IN TERMS OF WHO WAS EVEN IN THAT BEDROOM IS GOING TO BE AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK THAT WILL PRESENT A SERIOUS 403 QUESTION WHETHER THIS WILL EVEN BE ADMISSIBLE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE WHETHER IN FACT WHAT THEY WERE HEARING WAS EVEN AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON, MUCH LESS WHETHER THAT ARGUMENT HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE OTHER ADD-ON WAS AGAIN AN EVENT -- ALLEGED EVENT THAT WILL RAISE A SUBSTANTIAL 403 QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT EVER TOOK PLACE. WE ARE TOLD THAT MR. SIMPSON IS NOW GOING TO HAVE TO SEARCH HIS MEMORY FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 1986 AND 1987 AS TO ANY OCCASIONS ON WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT THE BEACH WITH MRS. SIMPSON, AND -- AND THE INCREDIBLE ALLEGATION IS THAT ON A PUBLIC BEACH IN THE PRESENCE OF PRESUMABLY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MR. SIMPSON STRUCK HIS WIFE AND KNOCKED HERB TO THE GROUND. I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE OF THE ABILITY OF THIS WITNESS TO ACTUALLY MAKE AN IDENTIFICATION NINE YEARS LATER. SUDDENLY THIS PERSON REMEMBERS, NINE YEARS AGO I WAS AT THE BEACH AND I SAW O.J. SIMPSON HIT HIS WIFE. WELL, EVEN IF THAT IS CREDIBLE, EVEN IF THAT IS BELIEVABLE, WE HAVE TO ASK WHAT DOES IT PROVE? WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? HOW DOES THAT ESTABLISH ANY MOTIVE, ANY INTENT OR THE IDENTITY OF ANYONE INVOLVED IN A MURDER ON JUNE 12, 1994? THE OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SOJOURN ITEM THAT WAS JUST PRESENTED IN COURT THIS MORNING, AGAIN, JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ATTEMPT TO USE HEARSAY IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, APART FROM ALL OF THE PROBLEMS OF AUTHENTICATION OF WHO THIS ACTUALLY WAS REFERRED TO IN THAT -- IN THAT REPORT. EVEN IF THOSE PROBLEMS ARE OVERCOME, THE QUESTION IS IT IS HEARSAY. WHAT HEARSAY EXCEPTION DOES IT COME WITHIN? SO YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE BOIL IT ALL DOWN, WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS -- IN THIS CHRONOLOGY IS AN AWFUL LOT OF HEARSAY, UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY, HEARSAY THAT THE DEFENDANT CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE, HEARSAY THAT COMES WITHIN NO RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THE ONLY POTENTIAL EXCEPTION BEING STATE OF MIND, WHICH IS NOT IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AND IT CAN'T BE MADE AN ISSUE JUST TO BOOTSTRAP THIS EVIDENCE. THE PROSECUTION CAN'T SOMEHOW CONSTRUCT SOME CONVOLUTED THEORY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKES THE STATE OF MIND OF THE VICTIM AN ISSUE JUST AS A DEVICE TO PULL IN ALL OF THESE ITEMS OF UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY. WE HAVE A LOT OF ITEMS AS TO WHICH THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES AT TRIAL, BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION HAS ANNOUNCED THEY ARE NOT CALLING FAYE RESNICK AND FAYE RESNICK IS THE ONLY REPORTED WITNESS TO THESE INCIDENTS. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANT OF HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE THAT REALLY OFFER NO INSIGHT INTO ANY STATE OF MIND OF THE DEFENDANT THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT ON JUNE 12, 1994. AND WHAT WE DO HAVE IN TERMS OF ANY INCIDENTS THAT CAN, BY THE WILDEST CHARACTERIZATION BE CALLED INCIDENTS OF ABUSE, DO NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL ABUSE IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE SINGLE EXCEPTION BEING THE 1989 INCIDENT IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON WAS PLACED ON PROBATION, MANY OF WHICH ARE VERY REMOTE TO ANYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS CASE, LONG BEFORE 1994. IN FACT, IT IS REMARKABLE THAT THERE ARE SO FEW IN THE COURSE OF A 17-YEAR RELATIONSHIP, AND YET INCIDENTS THAT COULD BE VERY PREJUDICIAL, VERY TIME-CONSUMING, VERY CONFUSING TO THE JURY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE TO MAKE OF ANY OF THIS. WHAT WE END UP WITH IS A BUMPY MARRIAGE IN WHICH THE PARTIES ARGUED A LOT, PROBABLY NO MORE THAN USUAL IN -- IN MANY MARRIAGES. ALL OF THE GOOD MOMENTS OF THAT MARRIAGE ARE LEFT OUT, AND PROBABLY THE LOW POINTS ARE THE 1989 NEW YEAR'S PARTY INCIDENT, THE ZLOMSOWITCH INCIDENT IN 1992, AND THE ARGUMENT OVER THE BROKEN DOOR IN 1993. AND WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THOSE INCIDENTS, THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS HOW SIMILAR ARE ANY OF THESE INCIDENTS TO WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12, 1994, WHEN TWO PEOPLE WERE BRUTALLY STABBED TO DEATH ON A SIDEWALK OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME? HOW DOES ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN A PUSHING AND SHOVING ARGUMENT FOLLOWING A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY RESOLVE ANY OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE TO RESOLVE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12? HOW DOES ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CONFRONTATION OF A MAN ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH HIS WIFE ILLUMINATE WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 12, 1994? AND HOW DOES A LOUD ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PICTURES ARE IN A FAMILY ALBUM LEADING TO THE BREAKING OF A DOOR IN 1993 ILLUMINATE ANY OF THOSE ISSUES? NO MATTER WHAT LABEL YOU PUT ON THESE INCIDENTS, IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM SPOUSAL ABUSE, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF SPOUSAL ABUSE, WHERE DOES THAT TAKE US IN TERMS OF THE REAL ISSUE THAT WE WANT TO LITIGATE IN THIS TRIAL? AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF WHO KILLED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN.
AND WE SUBMIT THAT NONE OF THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO TAKE US DOWN THE ROAD TO ANSWERING THAT QUESTION IN THIS TRIAL. MAY I CONFER WITH CO-COUNSEL?
THERE IS ONE ISSUE I DID NOT ADDRESS IN MY ORAL ARGUMENT AND I DON'T WANT YOUR HONOR TO ASSUME THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING OUR OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE TERMS "SPOUSAL ABUSE/BATTERED WIFE" IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. WE ALSO BELIEVE THOSE TERMS CARRY WITH THEM AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF BAGGAGE AND THEY NEED TO BE VERY CAREFULLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY MEAN AND HOW THEY ARE USED. AND WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE JURORS NOT BRING INTO THIS CASE ANY BAGGAGE THAT THEY MAY ASSOCIATE IN TERMS OF THIS NATURE THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU.
VERBAL ABUSE IS A NICE EUPHEMISM FOR AN ARGUMENT, AND TO SAY THAT EVERY TIME A MARRIED COUPLE GETS INTO AN ARGUMENT, THAT IS ABUSE OR VERBAL ABUSE, BECAUSE THEY HURL CRUEL WORDS AT EACH OTHER AND THAT SOMEHOW BECOMES RELEVANT TO PROVE SOMETHING IN A SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL CASE, RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION FOR THE COURT.
MR. REYNOZA APPARENTLY IS ONE OF THOSE CHARACTERS ON THE FRINGES OF THIS CASE WHO IS ADVANCING HIS OWN FILM CAREER BY ASSIGNING HIMSELF A STARING ROLE IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS O.J. SIMPSON, AND APPARENTLY HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS IN OTHER CASES AS WELL.
THE ONE THING WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT OF OCTOBER, 1993, AND THAT IS THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL ABUSE. AT NO TIME IN ANY OF THESE EVENTS DID MR. SIMPSON EVER STRIKE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, NOR IS THERE ANY ALLEGATION THAT HE THREATENED TO STRIKE HER.
WHAT WE END UP WITH IS A BUMPY MARRIAGE IN WHICH THE PARTIES ARGUED A LOT, PROBABLY NO MORE THAN USUAL IN -- IN MANY MARRIAGES. ALL OF THE GOOD MOMENTS OF THAT MARRIAGE ARE LEFT OUT.
THE PROSECUTION CAN'T SOMEHOW CONSTRUCT SOME CONVOLUTED THEORY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKES THE STATE OF MIND OF THE VICTIM AN ISSUE JUST AS A DEVICE TO PULL IN ALL OF THESE ITEMS OF UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY.