Jury return preparation

📄 Jury return preparation — Monday, July 10, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\10\JURY-RETURN-PREPARATION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 111 of 167

◀ Motion: Evidence Code 402 admissibility Direct examination of Arnelle Simpson (part 6) ▶

Date: Monday, July 10, 1995 • Utterances: 8

Judge Ito rules on the admissibility of a five-page handwritten document marked Defense exhibit 1226, ultimately excluding it. He finds no statutory or case law authority for its admission, notes a seven-month gap between the document's approximate March 1993 date and the October 1993 incident in question, and rules the evidence cumulative under Evidence Code 352 since the reconciliation attempt is already in the record through other witnesses. The court then prepares to bring in the jury, with Arnelle Simpson asked to wait in the courtroom.

# 1 THE COURT:

Thank you. All right. What this is is a five-page handwritten document, and I think are should give this a Defense exhibit number at this point.

# 2 THE CLERK:

1226.

# 3 THE COURT:

1226? Mr. Douglas, 1226 for the record so we know what this is.

# 4 (Deft's 1226 for id = five-page document)

# 5 THE COURT:

I don't find any specific statutory or case law authority for the admissibility of this particular item. I agree, however, that the Defense has the right to present evidence to negate a motive that is offered by the Prosecution. I believe that the Defense can establish an approximate date of March of 1993 because we know from previous evidence that Nicole Brown Simpson and the Defendant attempted a reconciliation of their relationship shortly after that time, which continued until approximately May of 1994. However, there is no evidence code section that allows the use of this particular item for that particular purpose. There is a long time line between March of 1993 and the incident that occurred in October of 1993, a seven-month time period, and human relations can take many turns and twists over that period of time, and I think a state of mind in March is not necessarily reflective of a state of mind in October.

Also, the evidence of the attempted reconciliation is in the record through other witnesses, and I'll sustain the objection under lack of statutory grounds, case law authority and under 352 issues since it's already in the record. All right. Let's have the jury. And is Arnelle Simpson here?

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes. She's in the back.

# 7 THE COURT:

All right. Miss Simpson, why don't you wait for the jurors to come in.

# 8 MS. SIMPSON:

Okay.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Lance A. Ito

I don't find any specific statutory or case law authority for the admissibility of this particular item.

Core basis for excluding Defense exhibit 1226 — no legal hook to admit it.

Lance A. Ito

human relations can take many turns and twists over that period of time, and I think a state of mind in March is not necessarily reflective of a state of mind in October

Judge's rationale for rejecting temporal relevance of the document to the motive argument.

Lance A. Ito

I'll sustain the objection under lack of statutory grounds, case law authority and under 352 issues since it's already in the record.

Triple-ground ruling excluding the exhibit — statutory, case law, and cumulative.

Evidence (1)

Defense 1226

Five-page handwritten document, approximate date March 1993, offered by Defense to negate motive attributed by Prosecution

marked for identification, ruled inadmissible

Notable Exchanges (1)

Lance A. Ito

Judge delivers a substantive ruling acknowledging the Defense's right to negate motive but finding no legal vehicle for this specific document, and flagging the seven-month temporal gap as undermining relevance.

deliberate

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6691 • 8 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103