Jury returns and instruction

📄 Jury returns and instruction — Monday, March 27, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\27\JURY-RETURNS-AND-INSTRUCTION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 45 of 167

◀ Sidebar (1) Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 1) ▶

Date: Monday, March 27, 1995 • Utterances: 8

Judge Ito reconvenes the jury and delivers a curative instruction explaining why he sustained an objection to the final question from the previous session. Counsel had asked Kato Kaelin about a 1989 domestic violence incident, but Kaelin had no contact with any of the parties until late 1992 and thus had no competent knowledge of those events. Ito instructs the jury not to draw any inference from the improper question.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. WE ARE MISSING ONE.

# 3 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 4 THE COURT:

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

# 5 THE JURY:

GOOD MORNING.

# 6 THE COURT:

WHEN WE WERE IN SESSION LAST THURSDAY A QUESTION WAS POSED TO MR. KAELIN AT THE END OF OUR SESSION REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN 1989. THAT INCIDENT YOU HAVE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT ALREADY. AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER TO MR. KAELIN THAT CLOSED THE SESSION WAS WITH REGARDS TO MR. KAELIN'S KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THAT 1989 INCIDENT, AND AS WE KNOW, MR. KAELIN HAD NO CONTACT WITH ANY OF THESE PEOPLE PRIOR TO LATE 1992 AND THUS HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING ANYTHING PERSONALLY ABOUT THOSE INCIDENTS. IN PROPOUNDING QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES COUNSEL MUST HAVE A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THAT WITNESS HAS COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO OFFER WITH REGARDS TO THAT SUBJECT MATTER, AND AS I INDICATED TO YOU, I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN BECAUSE I FELT THERE WAS A LACK OF A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. KAELIN WOULD HAVE GOOD INFORMATION, COMPETENT INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE, AND I FOUND THE QUESTION TO BE INAPPROPRIATE. OFTENTIMES YOU WILL NOTE THAT I SUSTAIN OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS AND I OCCASIONALLY INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU SHOULD ONLY CONSIDER THE QUESTION FOR THE MEANING THAT IT GIVES TO THE ANSWER AND YOU SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO BE TRUE ANY IMPLICATION THAT IS SUGGESTED BY THE QUESTION, AND THAT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION AND ANSWER AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

BRIAN KATO KAELIN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

# 7 THE COURT:

I'M SORRY. MR. KAELIN, GOOD MORNING.

# 8 THE WITNESS:

GOOD MORNING.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Lance A. Ito

I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN BECAUSE I FELT THERE WAS A LACK OF A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT MR. KAELIN WOULD HAVE GOOD INFORMATION, COMPETENT INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE, AND I FOUND THE QUESTION TO BE INAPPROPRIATE.

Ito explicitly criticizes counsel's good faith in posing the question — a pointed rebuke directed at attorney conduct, not just a routine evidentiary ruling.

Lance A. Ito

YOU SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO BE TRUE ANY IMPLICATION THAT IS SUGGESTED BY THE QUESTION, AND THAT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION AND ANSWER AS WELL.

Standard limiting instruction, but its necessity signals the judge believed the jury may have been improperly influenced by the question's framing.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Lance A. Ito•The Jury

Judge delivers a retrospective curative instruction explaining the sustained objection from the prior session regarding the 1989 incident and Kaelin's lack of personal knowledge.

authoritative

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 5417 • 8 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103