Cross-examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 3) — Thursday, March 23, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\23\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-BRIAN-KAT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 44 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 2) Recess ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, March 23, 1995 • Utterances: 164

Robert Shapiro cross-examines Kato Kaelin, working to minimize evidence of domestic violence by establishing that Kaelin witnessed only two verbal confrontations between OJ and Nicole in nearly 2.5 years — never any physical contact. Shapiro then pivots to painting OJ as a carefree, generous, good father who had moved on to a happy relationship with Paula Barbieri, provoking sustained objections from Clark over scope and character testimony.

# 1 Q:

DID YOU EVER SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM?

# 2 A:

I -- HE DIDN'T HIT HER. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT?

KEY QUOTE

# 3 Q:

DID YOU SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT AT ALL?

# 4 A:

NO.

# 5 Q:

ANY PUSHING, SHOVING?

# 6 A:

NO.

# 7 Q:

DID YOU KNOW -- NOTICE THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR THAT YOU SAY WAS DAMAGED?

# 8 A:

YES.

# 9 Q:

HAD THAT BEEN DAMAGED BEFORE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

# 10 A:

YES.

# 11 Q:

SO THAT WASN'T A DAMAGE THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE THAT DAY, WAS IT?

# 12 A:

THE -- THE TWO DAMAGES. ONE DAMAGE BEFORE, NO.

# 13 Q:

WAS THERE SOME ADDITIONAL DAMAGE?

# 14 A:

YES.

# 15 Q:

AND WHAT WAS THAT?

# 16 A:

UMM, THERE IS -- THERE IS A LOCK THAT IS IN THE DOOR AND -- WHERE THE FRENCH DOORS LOCK, THERE IS A PIECE OF WOOD AND IF IT GETS BROKEN OPEN, THE WOOD BROKE, AND I HAD HAMMERED IT ALL SHUT AT THE END OF THE NIGHT.

# 17 Q:

AND IS THAT THE ONLY INCIDENT THAT YOU CAN RECALL DURING THE TWO AND ALMOST A HALF YEARS THAT YOU KNEW NICOLE THAT THERE WAS ANY VERBAL CONFRONTATION?

# 18 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

# 19 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 20 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS THAT -- WAS THERE ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT RESULTED IN THE TWO OF THEM HAVING LOUD WORDS TOGETHER?

# 21 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 22 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 23 MS. CLARK:

WHAT HE KNOWS.

# 24 THE COURT:

THAT IS ASSUMED IN THE QUESTION.

# 25 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

SAY --

# 26 THE COURT:

DO YOU WANT TO REASK THE QUESTION?

# 27 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

OH, YEAH. SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN.

# 28 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: OTHER THAN THIS INCIDENT, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT YOU WERE -- WERE YOU PRESENT AT ANY OTHER TIME WHEN O.J. AND NICOLE WERE SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER?

# 29 A:

YES.

# 30 Q:

WHEN WAS THAT?

# 31 A:

THAT WAS A CHRISTMAS PARTY.

# 32 Q:

OKAY. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

# 33 A:

IT WAS A CHRISTMAS PARTY AT BRUCE JENNER'S AND I WALKED IN WITH THE FAMILY WHILE I WALKED INTO THE PARTY, AND LIKE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES INTO THE PARTY NICOLE JUST SAID "WE ARE LEAVING" AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON, I BELIEVE ABOUT A GUY THAT WAS AT THE PARTY, AND THERE WAS TWO ARGUMENTS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME AND I THINK IT WAS SOMEONE THAT CAME TO THE PARTY THAT WAS AN OLD BOYFRIEND OF NICOLE'S. AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT FLOWERS THAT WERE LEFT FOR O.J. I WAS IN THE BACK AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON AND IT WAS CHRISTMAS EVE.

KEY QUOTE

# 34 Q:

DID EVERYBODY GO HOME TOGETHER?

# 35 A:

YES.

# 36 Q:

EVERYBODY CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS EVE BACK AT HOME?

# 37 A:

AT ROCKINGHAM, YES.

# 38 Q:

NICOLE, O.J. AND THE KIDS?

# 39 A:

YES.

# 40 Q:

AND YOURSELF?

# 41 A:

AND ARNELLE AND JASON.

# 42 Q:

WHOLE FAMILY?

# 43 A:

YES.

# 44 Q:

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHEN -- THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT WHERE VOICES WERE EVEN RAISED?

# 45 A:

YES.

# 46 Q:

DID YOU EVER SEE NICOLE ON HER OWN DEMONSTRATE ANGER?

# 47 A:

YES. I DIDN'T SEE IT, NO.

# 48 Q:

DID YOU EVER SEE ANY RESULTS OF ANY ANGER SHE DISPLAYED?

# 49 A:

YES.

# 50 Q:

WHAT DID YOU SEE?

# 51 A:

UMM --

# 52 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 53 THE COURT:

WHAT IS THE OBJECTION.

# 54 MS. CLARK:

EXCEEDS THE SCOPE AND IT IS IRRELEVANT. OFFER OF PROOF AS TO RELEVANCE.

# 55 THE COURT:

IT IS ALSO SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION.

# 56 MR. SHAPIRO:

PERHAPS WE CAN DISCUSS THIS ALSO, YOUR HONOR, LATER ON.

# 57 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

# 58 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT WAS O.J.'S LIFE LIKE IN JANUARY OF 1994?

# 59 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, VAGUE. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, FOUNDATION.

# 60 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. OVERRULED. CALLS FOR A NARRATIVE, BUT WE WILL GET THERE EVENTUALLY. MR. SHAPIRO.

# 61 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT O.J.'S LIFE WAS LIKE IN JANUARY OF 1994?

# 62 A:

GOLFING.

# 63 Q:

WHAT TIME IN THE MORNING OR AFTERNOON?

# 64 A:

PROBABLY VERY EARLY, 6:00, I IMAGINE, I WASN'T UP, AND EARLY IN THE MORNING AND CAREFREE.

# 65 Q:

HE WOULD TRAVEL A LOT?

# 66 A:

YES.

# 67 Q:

HE WAS A SPOKESPERSON?

# 68 A:

YES.

# 69 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE. THIS IS CHARACTER WITNESS. HE CAN CALL HIM IN HIS OWN CASE THEN.

# 70 THE COURT:

OVERRULED AT THIS POINT. I ASSUME WE ARE GOING SOMEPLACE WITH THIS?

# 71 MR. SHAPIRO:

YES, YES.

# 72 Q:

AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH JUSTIN AND SYDNEY IN JANUARY?

# 73 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.

# 74 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 75 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

A GOOD FATHER TO SYDNEY AND JUSTIN.

KEY QUOTE

# 76 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD HE GO OVER AND VISIT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHEN THEY MOVED INTO BUNDY?

# 77 A:

YES.

# 78 Q:

WOULD HE SPEND TIME THERE?

# 79 A:

YES.

# 80 Q:

THERE WAS A DOG YOU TOLD US ABOUT, THIS DOG NAMED KATO?

# 81 A:

YES.

# 82 Q:

AND THAT WAS A DOG THAT SPENT TIME BOTH AT ROCKINGHAM AND AT BUNDY?

# 83 A:

YES.

# 84 Q:

AND THAT WAS A DOG THAT WAS VERY FRIENDLY TOWARD O.J.?

# 85 A:

YES.

# 86 Q:

AND THAT KNEW O.J. VERY WELL?

# 87 A:

YES.

# 88 Q:

AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WAS VERY COMFORTABLE AROUND O.J.?

# 89 A:

YES.

# 90 Q:

IT WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL FOR O.J. TO GO OVER TO BUNDY, WOULD IT?

# 91 A:

NO.

# 92 Q:

THAT IS WHERE HE WOULD PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE CHILDREN?

# 93 A:

YES.

# 94 Q:

HE WOULD ALSO GO AND PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN THERE?

# 95 A:

YES.

# 96 Q:

WHEN HE WAS OUT OF TOWN WOULD KATO, THE DOG, BE STAYING AT BUNDY?

# 97 A:

YES.

# 98 Q:

AND WHEN HE WAS IN TOWN WOULD KATO, THE DOG, SPEND TIME AT ROCKINGHAM?

# 99 A:

YES, OFF AND ON.

# 100 Q:

WAS THIS A TRAINED ANIMAL, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

# 101 A:

NO. YOU MEAN BY A TRAINER?

# 102 Q:

YES.

# 103 A:

NO.

# 104 Q:

WOULD IT OBEY COMMANDS?

# 105 A:

NO.

# 106 Q:

NOW, DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1994, WERE O.J. AND NICOLE STILL DATING AND WAS SHE STILL TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH HIM?

# 107 A:

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. IT WAS OFF AND ON, SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

# 108 Q:

AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU LEARN THAT O.J. HAD SAID THAT IT WASN'T WORKING OUT WITH NICOLE AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO THEIR OWN SEPARATE WAYS?

# 109 A:

AT SOME POINT, YES.

# 110 Q:

DO YOU RECALL PRECISELY WHEN THAT WAS?

# 111 A:

GOSH, PRECISELY? NOT PRECISELY, BUT -- IT COULD HAVE BEEN MARCH, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A DATE.

# 112 Q:

AND YOU RECALL AT THAT POINT IN TIME HE HAD DEVELOPED A ROMANTIC INTEREST WITH A WOMAN NAMED PAULA BARBIERI?

# 113 A:

YES, HE WAS DATING PAULA.

# 114 Q:

AND HE TOLD YOU HE FOUND HER VERY, VERY ATTRACTIVE?

# 115 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 116 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 117 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THEY SEEM TO HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP?

# 118 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

# 119 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 120 MS. CLARK:

VAGUE.

# 121 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 122 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

YES.

# 123 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE THEM TOGETHER?

# 124 A:

YES.

# 125 Q:

DID THEY BECOME BOYFRIEND AND GIRLFRIEND?

# 126 A:

YES.

# 127 Q:

WAS HE CONTENT WITH BEING WITH PAULA BARBIERI?

# 128 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

# 129 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 130 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE APPEAR TO BE CONTENT?

# 131 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

# 132 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 133 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EXPRESS TO YOU HIS SATISFACTION WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND?

# 134 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

# 135 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 136 MR. SHAPIRO:

THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID.

# 137 Q:

NOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN O.J. SIMPSON AND PAULA BARBIERI?

# 138 A:

UMM, THEY WERE A COUPLE THAT WENT TO EVENTS TOGETHER AND DATED, HAD DINNERS. SHE WOULD COME BY.

# 139 Q:

NOW, YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH O.J. YOU SAID WAS AS A FRIEND. WERE YOU PART OF HIS DAY-TO-DAY LIFE?

# 140 A:

NO.

# 141 Q:

WOULD YOU TALK TO HIM ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS?

# 142 A:

NO.

# 143 Q:

DID YOU KNOW HIS COMINGS AND GOINGS?

# 144 A:

NO.

# 145 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU WHEN HE WAS TRAVELING AND WHEN HE WAS NOT TRAVELING, GENERALLY?

# 146 A:

NO.

# 147 Q:

DID HE EVER CAUSE YOU TO FEEL THAT YOU WERE SOME TYPE OF A HOUSEKEEPER OR SERVANT THERE?

# 148 A:

NO.

# 149 Q:

DID HE EVER MAKE ANY DEMANDS ON YOU?

# 150 A:

NO.

# 151 Q:

WAS HE GENEROUS WITH YOU?

# 152 A:

YES.

# 153 Q:

WAS HE GENEROUS WITH EVERYONE THAT HE CAME IN CONTACT WITH?

# 154 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, THAT IS VAGUE.

# 155 THE COURT:

OVERRULED AS TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT MR. KAELIN.

# 156 MR. SHAPIRO:

THANK YOU.

# 157 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED AS TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

# 158 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS HE GENEROUS WITH MEMBERS OF NICOLE'S FAMILY?

# 159 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY.

# 160 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 161 MS. CLARK:

ALSO VAGUE AS TO "GENEROUS."

# 162 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 163 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH ON THE SCOPE OF THIS EXAMINATION. IT GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.

# 164 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A RECESS AT THIS TIME, IN ANY EVENT.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Kato Kaelin

GOLFING.

Kaelin's entire one-word answer to 'what was OJ's life like in January 1994' — captures his limited insight into OJ's inner life while also undercutting a motive narrative

Kato Kaelin

IT WAS A CHRISTMAS PARTY AT BRUCE JENNER'S AND I WALKED IN WITH THE FAMILY... THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON, I BELIEVE ABOUT A GUY THAT WAS AT THE PARTY... I THINK IT WAS SOMEONE THAT CAME TO THE PARTY THAT WAS AN OLD BOYFRIEND OF NICOLE'S.

The only second incident of verbal confrontation Kaelin could recall, and notably it involves Nicole's behavior, not OJ's aggression — useful to the defense

Kato Kaelin

HE DIDN'T HIT HER. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT.

Unprompted clarification — Kaelin volunteers the denial before the question is even fully asked, which Shapiro uses to reinforce no-violence narrative

Kato Kaelin

A GOOD FATHER TO SYDNEY AND JUSTIN.

Defense elicits character testimony about OJ as father through Kaelin, over Clark's objections

Evidence (1)

Informal

Damaged French door at Nicole's residence — lock broken open, wood cracked; Kaelin had hammered it shut

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark mounts sustained objections as Shapiro attempts to elicit character testimony about OJ's lifestyle, fatherhood, and relationship with Paula Barbieri. Ito overrules most on scope but grants Clark's hearsay and speculation objections when Shapiro pushes too far into OJ's subjective feelings about Paula.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Kato Kaelin

Shapiro walks Kaelin through the Christmas Eve party argument, eliciting details that frame the confrontation as mutual and partly triggered by Nicole's jealousy over an ex-boyfriend — subtly redirecting blame.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Kato Kaelin

When asked to repeat a question, Kaelin says 'Oh, yeah. Say the question again.' — classic Kato moment of informal courtroom speech

Kato Kaelin

Kaelin's monosyllabic 'GOLFING.' in response to the open-ended 'what was OJ's life like in January 1994'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ prosecution's domestic violence narrative

affirmative testimony limiting scope of known incidents

Shapiro establishes through Kaelin that in nearly 2.5 years of proximity to both OJ and Nicole, Kaelin witnessed zero physical contact and only two verbal arguments — one of which involved Nicole's anger over an ex-boyfriend at a Christmas party

Witness Demeanor

Uncertain and hedging on timeline questions ('Gosh, precisely? Not precisely')

Volunteering exculpatory details unprompted ('He didn't hit her. There was no physical contact.')

Informal speech patterns ('Oh, yeah. Say the question again.')

Objections

14 objections (6 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 5411 • 164 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103