ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S SEE. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK A FULL DAY. ALL RIGHT. AS TO YOUR OBJECTION, MARCIA, AS TO BOB'S OBJECTION REGARDING SCOPE, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?
THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- I HAVE MY LAW CLERKS FLAGGING THOSE AREAS IN THE TRANSCRIPT GOING INTO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN, HE WAS A LOVING FATHER, HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING TIME WITH SYDNEY AND WAS REMARKING ON THAT AND THAT WAS THE SOLE REASON FOR HIM BEING UPSET. THERE WAS THAT EFFORT TO PAINT THAT PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT AS LOVING FATHER AND LOVING HUSBAND. AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I THINK IT IS FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION OR FAIR IMPEACHMENT TO GO INTO THE FACT THAT THIS WITNESS WAS PRESENT AND LIVED WITH NICOLE WHEN O.J. FAILED TO VISIT ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN HE HAD SCHEDULED VISITS, AND HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
SO IT JUST GOES TO ADDRESS THAT. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A ONE QUESTION, TWO QUESTION THING.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THE QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ON DIRECT EXAMINATION WAS AN IMPLICATION THAT THERE WAS A MOTIVE THAT O.J. WAS UNHAPPY BECAUSE OF THE WAY NICOLE TREATED HIM VIS-A-VIS SYDNEY AT THE RECITAL. AND THE PURPOSE OF MY CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS IN THAT NARROW AREA TO CLEAR THAT UP. THIS NOW BRINGS UP A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ATTENTIVE ON CHILD CUSTODY AND CHILD CARE ISSUES, AND IT IS AN ISSUE THAT REALLY IS A CHARACTER ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RULED ON.
WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN BRINGING UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH THIS WITNESS ABOUT WHAT A GENEROUS PERSON HE IS, ABOUT THE LOVING FATHER THAT HE IS, ABOUT THE GOOD HUSBAND THAT HE IS AND HIS GENEROSITY TO NICOLE'S FAMILY. ALL OF THIS WAS PERMITTED, ALL OF THIS WAS ALLOWED, ALL OF THIS IS CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND WITH --
I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT, MISS CLARK. I'M INTERESTED IN THE SPECIFIC ISSUE REGARDING CHILD -- THE CHILDREN AND CHILD CARE.
THAT WAS GONE INTO BY THE DEFENSE, THAT THE SOLE REASON THAT HE WAS CONCERNED OR UPSET WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE WITH SYDNEY AND THE PICTURE OF HIS DEVOTION TO HIS CHILDREN. AND IN RESPONSE TO IMPEACH THAT, I THINK IT IS FAIR.
AND WHAT IS MR. KAELIN GOING TO TESTIFY? WHAT IS HE GOING TO SAY? WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE HE IS GOING TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT? HE IS AWARE OF ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OVER THE WEEKEND AND HE FAILED TO SHOW? IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HEAR?
WE HAVE A DIARY FROM NICOLE THAT INDICATES IT WAS A REPEATED THING, THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK THAT HE WAS MISSING HIS VISITS WITH THE CHILDREN AND THAT HE WOULD SCHEDULE THINGS, SCHEDULE DINNERS TO TAKE THEM TO AND NEVER SHOW UP, SCHEDULE WEEKENDS TO HAVE THEM AND NEVER SHOW UP OR BRING THEM BACK EARLIER THAN SCHEDULED.
WELL, I NEVER KNOW WHAT MR. KAELIN IS GOING TO SAY EXACTLY. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THAT BECAUSE HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE SAME TIME SHE MADE HER -- HE WAS LIVING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE HER JOURNAL ENTRIES INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN THEY HAD SCHEDULED VISITS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO GET HER JOURNAL IN. I'M SAYING I HAVE A GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN THE VERACITY OF THIS INFORMATION AND MR. KAELIN SHOULD BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THAT.
YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD STRENUOUSLY OBJECT UNDER 352. IT IS VERY, VERY PREJUDICIAL AND IT OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW AREA AS TO WHY HE MIGHT HAVE HAD TO, IF DID HE HAVE TO, CANCEL A VISIT. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AND WHICH I THOROUGHLY CROSS-EXAMINED ON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A MOTIVE TO KILL NICOLE BECAUSE SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW O.J. TO SEE SYDNEY AND THAT WAS THE ONLY AREA I EXAMINED ON. AND NOW TO GO THROUGH AND OPEN UP A DOOR FOR AN ENTIRE HISTORY OF PROPER PARENTING ON BOTH SIDES IS INAPPROPRIATE, IS AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME, IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION AND GETS US INTO TANGENTIAL ISSUES THAT THE COURT HAS ALWAYS SAID WE WANT TO AVOID.
WELL, COUNSEL SIMPLY IS ASKING THE COURT TO SAVE HIM FROM HIS OWN IMPROVIDENT QUESTION. IT IS TOO BAD. HE ASKED QUESTIONS THAT ARE SO OPEN-ENDED AND SO BROAD, HE HAS OPENED EVERY DOOR AND NOW HE IS ASKING THE COURT TO BASICALLY SAVE HIM. IT IS NOT FAIR, YOUR HONOR. IN CROSS-EXAMINATION HE WENT INTO THESE MATTERS, AND REDIRECT. IT IS APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT WAS DONE AND WE OBJECTED TO IT. WHEN WE OBJECTED TO IT THE COURT OVERRULED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION.
KEY QUOTEWELL, WHAT HAPPENS -- I ALSO SUSTAINED SOME OF YOUR OBJECTIONS AND THEN YOU CAME BACK AND OPENED THE DOOR YOURSELF, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, SO DO YOU WANT ME TO SAVE YOU FROM THAT AS WELL?
ALL RIGHT. MY BIGGEST CONCERN, AND I THINK THE BEST ARGUMENT THAT MR. SHAPIRO MAKES, IS THAT THEN WE GET INTO ISSUES OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF GOOD CARE-BAD CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WHICH ARE PRETTY MUCH IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY QUESTION THAT THE DEFENDANT LOVES HIS CHILDREN.
WELL, AREN'T WE GOING FAR AFIELD? LOVING THE CHILDREN IS ONE THING. KILLING THE MOM IS SOMETHING ELSE.
KEY QUOTEWE OBJECTED TO BEGIN WITH ON THE GROUND IT WAS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. OUR OBJECTION IS ON THE RECORD SAYING THIS IS ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, AND THE COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTION AND ALLOWED IT ALL IN.
WELL, IF I ALLOW THIS -- IF I ALLOW THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HEAR 53 DEFENSE WITNESSES WHO ARE BEING TO SAY HE WAS A LOVING FATHER.
WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY HEAR THAT ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR, BUT NEVERTHELESS, I MEAN COUNSEL OPENS THIS DOOR AND NOW WANTS TO SHUT IT ON THE PEOPLE AND THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WHEN CROSS-EXAMINATION OPENS THESE DOORS, THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO LIMIT IT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO 53 QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN HE DID AND DID NOT SHOW UP, BUT I THINK WE ARE CERTAINLY ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE MATTER ADDRESSED BY COUNSEL ON CROSS IN A LIMITED FASHION, AND THEN THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO LIMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL AS WELL AS TO THE SCOPE OF THIS KIND OF QUESTIONING. BUT TO TIE OUR HANDS AFTER THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR AND THROWN THE FIRST PUNCH AND OVERRULED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION TO IT WOULD SIMPLY GIVE AN UNBALANCED AND UNTRUE PICTURE TO THE JURY.
I'M NOT SAYING IT ISN'T, NO. IF THE COURT HAS DETERMINED -- WELL, I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I THINK CHARACTER EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE DEFENSE CASE AND NOT ATTEMPTED TO BE PRESENTED THROUGH THE PEOPLE'S WITNESS BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY. I ASKED NOTHING PERTAINING TO CHARACTER EVIDENCE FROM THIS WITNESS.
WELL, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS MR. KAELIN'S ONLY APPEARANCE HERE, BUT I SEE THAT WE WILL PROBABLY SEE HIM AGAIN.
I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE WOULD SEE HIM AGAIN IF WE ADHERE TO PROPER PROCEDURE IN THE COURTROOM AND THAT THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NOT EVEN A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. KAELIN KNOWS ANY OF THIS, TO BEGIN WITH. THAT IS THE FIRST THING. BECAUSE THOSE QUESTIONS -- EXCUSE ME. MISS CLARK WANTS TO TALK, I WILL WAIT.
THAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE DISCOVERY, WE HAVE ALL TALKED TO MR. KAELIN, AND THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED BY ANYONE, AND UNLESS SHE CAN MAKE A REPRESENTATION TO YOUR HONOR THAT SHE HAS ASKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS AND KNOWS THE ANSWER OR THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCOVERY MATERIAL, IT WOULD BE BAD FAITH. THE SECOND THING IS WE ARE GOING TO END UP WITH A TRIAL THAT HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH TO MURDERED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN, BUT WHETHER WHO IS A BETTER PARENT, WHO TOOK CARE OF THE CHILDREN, AND THAT IS NOT AN ISSUED IN THIS CASE.
EXCEPT THAT COUNSEL HAS MADE IT AN ISSUE. WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION THAT NICOLE INVITED HIM TO STAY IN THE GUEST HOUSE AFTER ONLY KNOWING HIM A WEEK AND WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION --
MISS CLARK, LET'S STOP GOING FAR AFIELD AT THIS POINT. THE POINT RAISED BY MR. SHAPIRO AT THIS POINT IS CAN YOU MAKE A GOOD FAITH OFFER THAT THAT IS WHAT KATO KAELIN IS GOING TO SAY WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, THAT HE IS AWARE OF NUMEROUS INCIDENCES, X, Y AND Z, WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS OBLIGATED OR HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO TAKE THE KIDS AND NEVER SHOWED, STOOD THEM UP?
MR. KAELIN LIVED AT GRETNA GREEN DURING THAT ENTIRE TIME. MUCH OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFRAY THE RENTAL COSTS WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN. HE HAS SO TESTIFIED.
I FIND IT MORE PRODUCTIVE TO TALK TO MR. KAELIN ON THE WITNESS STAND WHERE HE FEELS SOME PRESSURE TO TELL THE TRUTH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WILL SAY TO ME PRIVATELY. HE IS NOT A COOPERATIVE WITNESS. HE IS OBVIOUSLY A RELUCTANT WITNESS, FOR THE PROSECUTION, THAT IS.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE PEOPLE SHOULD WITHDRAW HIM AND MOVE TO STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY.
WAIT. THEY CAN PRESENT HOSTILE WITNESSES. IN FACT, I'M SURPRISED THEY HAVEN'T ASKED ME TO DEEM HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS YET.
WELL, IN ANY EVENT, I DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE, MR. COCHRAN, BUT THAT ISSUE HASN'T BEEN BROACHED YET SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON IT. BUT MISS CLARK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHAT WITH MR. KAELIN BEFORE YOU ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT. SO BEFORE WE GET THERE, WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF SIDE BAR FOR YOU TO TELL ME YES OR NO WHAT HE SAYS.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET'S GO DO SOME BUSINESS. I ASSUME THE SHERIFFS HAVE CLEARED THE COURTROOM BY NOW.
YOUR HONOR, I ASKED PERMISSION TO INTERVIEW MR. KAELIN BEFORE MR. SHAPIRO DID. IN VIEW OF THE INTIMIDATION THAT THIS WITNESS HAS HAD AND THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITH AND REGARD TO THE DEFENSE TO PERSUADE THIS WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN A CERTAIN MANNER, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR ME TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC WITH HIM WITHOUT THE PRESENCE, INTIMIDATING PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH MR. KAELIN WITH ANOTHER WITNESS PRESENT, AND MR. SHAPIRO IS FREE TO DISCUSS WHATEVER HE WOULD LIKE WITH MR. KAELIN, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A PRODUCTIVE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH IF MR. SHAPIRO IS STANDING THERE BREATHING DOWN HIS NECK AND INTIMIDATING HIM.
I THOUGHT WE AGREED THIS COULD BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH ATTORNEYS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE MR. KAELIN.
YES. YOUR HONOR PREVIOUSLY HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ISSUE WARNINGS TO COUNSEL. I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY OBJECTION TO THE INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS THAT WERE JUST MADE.
MR. KAELIN, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
BRIAN KATO KAELIN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WELL, AREN'T WE GOING FAR AFIELD? LOVING THE CHILDREN IS ONE THING. KILLING THE MOM IS SOMETHING ELSE.
WELL, COUNSEL SIMPLY IS ASKING THE COURT TO SAVE HIM FROM HIS OWN IMPROVIDENT QUESTION. IT IS TOO BAD.
I FIND IT MORE PRODUCTIVE TO TALK TO MR. KAELIN ON THE WITNESS STAND WHERE HE FEELS SOME PRESSURE TO TELL THE TRUTH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WILL SAY TO ME PRIVATELY. HE IS NOT A COOPERATIVE WITNESS.
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR ME TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC WITH HIM WITHOUT THE PRESENCE, INTIMIDATING PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE.
THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A DECEDENT'S JOURNAL EXCEPTION IN THE EVIDENCE CODE.