ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE HAVE THE JURORS REJOIN US. MR. SHAPIRO?
YES, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE COURT REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR CONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE LAST THURSDAY. MAY I DO THAT? YOUR HONOR, WE SUGGEST STRINGENT SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED FOR THE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAT AROSE AT THE END OF OUR SESSION ON THURSDAY. THE REASON THAT WE THINK THE SANCTION SHOULD BE SEVERE IS THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, BUT IT IS BECOMING A CONTINUED COURSE OF CONDUCT AND IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND WITH THE SAME FREQUENCY AT THE END OF THE COURT WEEK. THE COURT I'M SURE WILL RECALL LAST WEEK WE ENDED WITH TESTIMONY ABOUT A PLASTIC BAG IN THE BACK OF THE BRONCO AND THE JURY WAS LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION OVER THE WEEKEND THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING SINISTER TO HAVING THAT. THEY THEN STARTED THE SESSION ON MONDAY BY POINTING OUT THEMSELVES THAT THIS WAS STANDARD EQUIPMENT THAT WAS USED ONLY FOR THE SPARE TIRE ON THE TRUCK. THE CONDUCT WAS WANTON AND WILLFUL, IN MY OPINION, ON THURSDAY, WHEN A BAD FAITH QUESTION WAS PROPOSED. FIRST BY WAY OF HISTORY, THE COURT TWICE THAT DAY HAD TO ADMONISH COUNSEL FOR CONDUCT THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S REGULATIONS THE PRIOR WEEK. AND THEN THERE WAS A SIDE BAR WHERE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC ADMONITION BY THE COURT NOT TO BRING UP A CERTAIN INCIDENT REGARDING MICHELLE ABOUDRAM AND THE FACT THAT NICOLE SIMPSON SLAPPED HER. THEN FINALLY A QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT A 1989 INCIDENT. I HAVE REVIEWED EXTENSIVELY ALL THE MATERIALS REGARDING MR. KAELIN AND NOT ONCE IN ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY COUNSEL FOR EITHER SIDE OR ANY INVESTIGATOR WERE ANY QUESTIONS ASKED REGARDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF A 1989 INCIDENT OR ANYTHING THAT WAS ALLUDED TO BY COUNSEL BY WAY OF DIRECT -- BY WAY OF REDIRECT EXAMINATION. GIVING THE JURY THE IMPRESSION THAT MR. KAELIN WAS AWARE OF AN INCIDENT IN 1989 IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE KNEW OF THIS INCIDENT WHEN COUNSEL WELL KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MR. KAELIN, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND MR. O.J. SIMPSON UNTIL 1992. AND THEN HIGHLIGHTING IN A LOUD TONE OF VOICE WHAT WAS PRESUMED TO BE A FACT THAT MICHELLE OPENED THE DOOR TO ALLOW A BEATING IN 1989 IS A SERIOUS TRANSGRESSION. WE BELIEVE THE JURY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS TRANSGRESSION AND WE WOULD SUGGEST A SANCTION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHY THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE WOULD ACT IN SUCH AN UNPROFESSIONAL MANNER AND WHAT MOTIVATION THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING FORTH TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JURY FOR THE WEEKEND A FACT THAT THEY KNOW COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ONE BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION. WE BELIEVE THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE WITHIN THE RECORD OF PAST CONDUCT, AS WELL AS A CONTINUED COURSE OF CONDUCT ON THURSDAY, TO WARRANT THESE SANCTIONS. AND WE WOULD URGE THE COURT TO DIRECT THE JURY'S ATTENTION TO THIS.
YOUR HONOR, I WILL WRITE SOME OUT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT -- SUGGEST TO THE JURY THE FOLLOWING: THAT AT THE END OF THE SESSION ON THURSDAY COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT BEFORE THIS COURT. THE COURT HAS SANCTIONED THE PROSECUTOR FOR THAT MISCONDUCT AND THE JURY IS NOT ONLY TO DISREGARD ANY SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR IN ASKING THE QUESTION, BUT MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE MOTIVATION FOR THE PROSECUTOR IN DELIBERATELY ENGAGING IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
YES, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, I'M HERE BEFORE THE COURT THIS MORNING TO ADMIT MY CULPABILITY IN ALL OF THIS. IT WAS I WHO HANDED MISS CLARK A QUESTION ON A PIECE OF PAPER ASKING HER TO ASK MR. KAELIN IF HE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT MICHELLE ABOUDRAM, THE MAID BACK IN 1989, HAD OPENED THE DOOR TO HER QUARTERS ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT ACCESS TO THE ROOM AND ALLOWING HIM ACCESS TO NICOLE ON JANUARY 1, 1989. WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION FROM A WITNESS THAT WE HAVE INTERVIEWED -- THAT I HAVE INTERVIEWED PERSONALLY, WHO CLAIMS THAT MICHELLE ABOUDRAM TOLD HER THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED. MR. SHAPIRO ASKED MR. KAELIN ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN. HE ASKED HIM MANY QUESTIONS WHICH WE CONSIDERED TO BE QUESTIONS GOING TO MR. SIMPSON'S CHARACTER. AND WE BROUGHT THAT ISSUE UP BEFORE THE COURT, IN MY VIEW, AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT'S CHARACTER WAS FAIR GAME, AND I HANDED A QUESTION TO MISS CLARK. USUALLY WHEN I HAND MISS CLARK A QUESTION IT IS A GOOD QUESTION, AND I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HAVING ASKED A QUESTION IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I HANDED IT TO HER, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I ASKED HER TO ASK THE QUESTION OF THE WITNESS, AND ALSO BECAUSE I AM THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, NICOLE BROWN. I REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT OVER THE WEEKEND AND I NOTED THE QUESTION THAT MR. SHAPIRO ASKED MR. KAELIN. I NOTED OUR OBJECTION. I HAD FORGOTTEN THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE COURT'S RULING THAT IT WAS IRRELEVANT WHEN I HANDED HER THE QUESTION ALSO, BY THE WAY. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS FAIR CHARACTER EVIDENCE OR FAIR ISSUE OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE AT THE TIME WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION. I DON'T THINK ANY PREJUDICE HAS ACCRUED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE JURY HAS HEARD A LOT ABOUT THEIR PAST RELATIONSHIP, THEIR PAST VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP, THAT HE CALLED HER NAMES, THAT HE USED PROFANITIES, THAT HE SAID HE MIGHT BE PATHOLOGICALLY JEALOUS. THE JURY HAS HEARD THE 1993 TAPE. I THINK THE JURY HAS A FAIR -- SOME INDICATION AS TO -- AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. I CAN'T SEE HOW HE MIGHT BE PREJUDICED. I EXPECT THAT AT SOME POINT DURING THIS TRIAL THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO HEAR FROM MICHELLE ABOUDRAM AND I EXPECT THAT SHE IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO HAVING OPENED THAT DOOR AND TO THE DEFENDANT HAVING DRAGGED THE WITNESS OUT OF THE ROOM.
WELL, MR. DARDEN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THOUGH: WHAT BASIS DO WE HAVE OR DID WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION REGARDING MICHELLE ABOUDRAM WITH MR. KAELIN, GIVEN THE FACT THAT MR. KAELIN WAS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES HERE UNTIL LATE 1992?
CHARACTER EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. IS HE AWARE? DOES HE KNOW? HE HAS TESTIFIED TO THE DEFENDANT'S GOOD CHARACTER. CHARACTER IS AN ISSUE NOW. WE FELT THAT WE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK HIM IF HE KNEW OF THINGS RELATING TO HIS BAD CHARACTER.
THE QUESTION WAS COUCHED IN THIS MANNER: WAS MR. KAELIN AWARE -- DID HE RECALL THAT MICHELLE WAS THE ONE WHO OPENED THE DOOR TO LET THE DEFENDANT INTO THE ROOM TO BEAT NICOLE IN 1989. THAT HARDLY IS COUCHED AS A REPUTATION QUESTION.
OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS MY VIEW. IT WAS MY VIEW THAT IT WAS CHARACTER EVIDENCE, CHARACTER EVIDENCE-RELATED QUESTION. MISS CLARK PHRASED IT IN THE MANNER THAT SHE DID. OBVIOUSLY SHE TOOK THE PIECE OF PAPER FROM ME AND ASKED A QUESTION A MOMENT LATER RELYING ON MY IMPLIED REPRESENTATION THAT THE QUESTION WAS APPROPRIATE. WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY?
WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT MR. KAELIN WAS GOING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THIS INCIDENT?
I KNOW THAT MR. KAELIN HAD A VERY, VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN. THIS INFORMATION IS COMMONLY KNOWN TO PEOPLE WHO KNEW HER AND WHO KNEW OF THE 1989 INCIDENT. QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP OR ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, OVER OUR OBJECTION, ON MANY OCCASIONS, SO WHETHER HE WAS AWARE OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. BUT THE JURY WILL HEAR THIS EVIDENCE UNLESS THE COURT PRECLUDES IT. I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO COME OUT.
ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AS TO MR. SHAPIRO'S REQUEST THAT I ADMONISH THE JURY THAT THAT QUESTION -- THAT THERE WAS NO GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION TO BE ASKED AND THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK THAT QUESTION OR FOR MISS CLARK TO ASK THAT QUESTION?
WELL, I THINK THAT MANY, MANY, MANY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN PROFFERED BY THE DEFENSE TO WITNESSES IN BAD FAITH THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL. WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED TO INCIDENTS WHERE THEY WERE NOT PRESENT. THEY HAVE BEEN -- HAVE TESTIFIED ON ISSUES WHERE THEY HAD NEITHER THE KNOWLEDGE OR THE TRAINING OR OTHERWISE I FELT INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THOSE ISSUES. THE COURT HAS ON MANY OCCASIONS, SINCE MR. SHAPIRO BEGAN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER, ADVISED THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS, OKAY? AND I THINK AS WELL THAT THE DEFENSE HAS A HISTORY --
AS DID YOU WITH THIS LAST QUESTION JUST THE OTHER DAY. YOU KNOW, ALL OF US, I THINK SOMETIMES WE -- WE ARE IN THE ATTACK MODE AND WE ATTACK. THIS IS A TRIAL. THERE WAS NOTHING MALICIOUS BEHIND OUR ASKING OF THE QUESTION. I ASSUMED THAT WHEN MR. SHAPIRO ASKED THE MANY QUESTIONS THAT HE ASKED THE WITNESS IN WHICH THE COURT HAD TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE ANSWER OR THE IMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION, I ASSUME HE DIDN'T ASK MALICIOUSLY EITHER. I DON'T THINK SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT. THE COURT ADMONISHED THE JURY AND I THINK THE ADMONITION WAS FAIRLY STRONG. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PROCEED ON WITH THE TRIAL. HOPEFULLY IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT, FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS THE DEFENSE PROFFERED QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES ON ISSUES OR MATTERS THAT THEY KNOW THAT ONLY THE DEFENDANT COULD TESTIFY TO, OKAY? AND WE HAVE OBJECTED AND THE COURT HAS ADMONISHED THE JURY AND THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED SOME OF THOSE OBJECTIONS, BUT IF THE COURT MAY RECALL, THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, FOUR OR FIVE AT A TIME, WHERE THE COURT FOUND THE QUESTIONS INAPPROPRIATE.
WELL, IT IS MY QUESTION, SO WHEN YOU SAY IT IS OUT OF THE BLUE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS -- PERHAPS IT WAS OUT OF THE BLUE. I MEAN, I AM HERE TO DO MORE THAN JUST DIE ON MY SWORD FOR MISS CLARK AND FOR THE PROSECUTION.
I WANT TO FALL AND DIE ON IT AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT IS MY FAULT. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE CHARACTER EVIDENCE QUESTION. THEY CONTINUE TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THESE WITNESSES THAT GO TO CHARACTER AND I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT I AM -- THAT I HAVE EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER AND NOW I HAVE MORE AND WE ARE GOING TO BE APPROACHING THE COURT AND ASKING PERMISSION TO PRESENT A FEW DAYS OF BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE --
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS WHO IS AT FAULT. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE AND THE LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IN PRESENTING IT. FURTHER, I THINK THE COURT CAN EASILY FIND THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS AT THE END OF FRIDAY SESSIONS. ONE SESSION WE ENDED WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT MR. SIMPSON SUFFERED A CUT ON HIS KNUCKLE. THE PEOPLE ARE WELL AWARE THAT EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THAT CUT TOOK PLACE IN CHICAGO AND THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WERE AWARE OF IT AND THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THAT BY MR. SIMPSON GETTING A BAND-AID FROM THE CLERK WHEN HE CHECKED OUT, BY HAVING A BROKEN GLASS IN THE BATHROOM AND HAVING BLOOD ON A TOWEL AND ON A SHEET IN THE ROOM IN WHICH HE WAS STAYING. I HAD ALREADY POINTED OUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE BRONCO WHICH ANY MINOR INVESTIGATION, ANY SIMPLE QUESTION WOULD POINT OUT THIS IS STANDARD EQUIPMENT AND WASN'T AS -- THE PEOPLE HAD WANTED THE JURY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS PREMEDITATED TO GO AND HAVE A BAG TO BURY A BODY, WHICH WAS THE SPIN FOR THE WEEKEND THAT WAS PUT OUT. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS CONDUCT THAT COMES AGAIN RIGHT AT THE END OF THE COURT SESSION THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THIS IS A WITNESS WHO HAS PROBABLY BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PROSECUTION AS MUCH OR MORE THAN ANY OTHER WITNESS IN THE CASE. THIS IS SOMEBODY THEY VIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS. THIS IS SOMEBODY THAT THEY VOICE DISPLEASURE WITH IN THEIR QUESTIONS AND TRY TO IMPEACH BASED ON CREDIBILITY. AND THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED IN A MALICIOUS WAY.
WELL, MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ASSUMING THAT I'M WILLING TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, BECAUSE IF YOU RECOLLECT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR PROCEEDINGS THURSDAY AFTERNOON, I TOLD THEM THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. I IN FACT TOLD THEM THAT THE RECORD, WHICH AT THIS POINT IS UNDISPUTED, WAS THAT MR. KAELIN DID NOT HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS UNTIL LATE, 1992, AND THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND I TOLD THE JURY THAT THE QUESTION WAS INAPPROPRIATE. NOW, IF I AM TO ADMONISH THEM AGAIN, AS PER YOUR REQUEST, IT IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE QUESTION AND ANSWER AGAIN. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO?
NOT NECESSARILY. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IS OUR TEAM HAS BEEN SANCTIONED TWICE FOR CONDUCT THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND THE JURY HAS BEEN TOLD THAT WE WERE SANCTIONED AND THOSE SANCTIONS WERE VERY STERN AND VERY ONEROUS.
AND IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN THEY WILL ALSO BE MADE AWARE AND OUR CLIENT WILL SUFFER AS A RESULT. WE BELIEVE THIS JURY SHOULD KNOW THAT SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROSECUTION, THAT THIS WAS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A BAD FAITH QUESTION AND THAT THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTIVATION OF THE PERSON ASKING SUCH A QUESTION. YES, WE WANT THAT DONE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)
I'm here before the court this morning to admit my culpability in all of this. It was I who handed Miss Clark a question on a piece of paper asking her to ask Mr. Kaelin if he had knowledge of the fact that Michelle Aboudram, the maid back in 1989, had opened the door to her quarters allowing the defendant access to the room.
The expression is fall on my sword.
I want to fall and die on it and go somewhere else. It is my fault.
Now, if I am to admonish them again, as per your request, it is to highlight the question and answer again. Is that what you want me to do?
The conduct was wanton and willful, in my opinion, on Thursday, when a bad faith question was proposed... highlighting in a loud tone of voice what was presumed to be a fact that Michelle opened the door to allow a beating in 1989 is a serious transgression.