Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 1)

📄 Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 1) — Monday, March 27, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\27\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-BRIAN-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 45 of 167

◀ Jury returns and instruction Sidebar (2) ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 27, 1995 • Utterances: 183

Marcia Clark used redirect to systematically undermine Kato Kaelin's cross-examination testimony that OJ and Nicole had a good relationship, establishing that Kato only saw them together six or seven times in six months and had largely lost contact with Nicole by March 1994. Clark also probed the financial and professional dependency between Kato and OJ, including a phone call OJ made on Kato's behalf for an acting audition in May 1994.

# 1 THE COURT:

YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

# 2 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 3 THE COURT:

REDIRECT.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

# 5 THE JURY:

GOOD MORNING.

# 6

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

# 7

BY MS. CLARK:

# 8 Q:

NOW, MR. KAELIN, YOU LIVED IN THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION FROM JANUARY OF 1994 UNTIL JUNE OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 9 A:

YES.

# 10 Q:

AND WHO WAS LIVING IN THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU WERE LIVING THERE?

# 11 A:

ON ROCKINGHAM? O.J. AND ARNELLE, MYSELF AND GIGI OFF AND ON.

# 12 Q:

AND WHEN GIGI WAS NOT THERE, WHO ELSE WAS THERE?

# 13 A:

WHO WOULD VISIT?

# 14 Q:

NO, WHO WAS THE MAID?

# 15 A:

BEFORE THAT WAS MICHELLE.

# 16 Q:

WERE YOU LIVING THERE WHEN SHE WAS LIVING THERE?

# 17 A:

YES.

# 18 Q:

DID YOU INTERACT WITH HER ON A DAILY BASIS?

# 19 A:

IF I WOULD SEE HER, YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. SHE WOULD BE THERE EVERYDAY AND I WOULD SEE HER.

# 20 Q:

DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HER HER RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE?

# 21 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 22 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 23 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE NICOLE WHEN SHE WOULD COME TO VISIT ROCKINGHAM?

# 24 A:

SOMETIMES, YES.

# 25 Q:

DID YOU SPEAK TO MICHELLE?

# 26 A:

YES.

# 27 Q:

AND DID YOU SPEAK TO NICOLE?

# 28 A:

YES.

# 29 Q:

I BELIEVE YOU EARLIER TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE NICOLE AND MICHELLE WOULD NOT BE AT ROCKINGHAM AT THE SAME TIME?

# 30 A:

YES.

# 31 Q:

AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE REASON FOR THAT?

# 32 A:

THEY DIDN'T LIKE EACH OTHER.

# 33 Q:

AND DID YOU EVER SEE THEM AT ROCKINGHAM TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME?

# 34 A:

IN THE HOUSE AT THE SAME TIME BUT NOT IN THE SAME AREA.

# 35 Q:

OKAY. HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE EACH OTHER.

# 36 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 37 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 38 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SPEAK TO MICHELLE ABOUT IT?

# 39 A:

SHE WOULD BRING THINGS UP.

# 40 Q:

ABOUT NICOLE?

# 41 A:

YES.

# 42 Q:

DID NICOLE BRING UP THINGS ABOUT MICHELLE?

# 43 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 44 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 45 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU THOUGHT NICOLE AND O.J. GOT ALONG WELL WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THIS MATTER WITH MR. SHAPIRO ON EXAMINATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 46 A:

OFF AND ON, YES.

# 47 Q:

YOU DIDN'T -- BUT YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT O.J. DID FROM DAY-TO-DAY; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 48 A:

YES.

# 49 Q:

YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE DEFENDANT WENT AND WHAT HE DID ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 50 A:

YES.

# 51 Q:

YET YOU TESTIFIED TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE?

# 52 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 53 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 54 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE IF YOU DID NOT SEE HIM OR HER ON A DAILY BASIS?

# 55 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION.

# 56 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SIR?

# 57 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

NO.

# 58 THE COURT:

REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 59 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

SAY IT AGAIN.

# 60 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: YOU STATED AN OPINION THAT THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP FROM THE TIME THAT YOU KNEW THEM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 61 A:

YES.

# 62 Q:

YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 63 A:

YES, IT IS.

# 64 Q:

YOU ALSO TESTIFIED YOU DID NOT SEE NICOLE FROM JANUARY TO JUNE ON A BASIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 65 A:

YES.

# 66 Q:

ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP IF YOU SAW NEITHER ONE OF THEM ON A DAILY BASIS?

# 67 A:

ON A DAILY BASIS I WOULD NOT SEE THEM. I'M GOING ON WHEN I DID SEE -- AT TIME WHEN I DID SEE IT.

# 68 Q:

FROM JANUARY TO JUNE OF 1994 HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THEM TOGETHER?

# 69 A:

JANUARY TO JUNE? SIX OR SEVEN.

KEY QUOTE

# 70 Q:

SIX TO SEVEN TIMES IN SIX MONTHS?

# 71 A:

YES.

# 72 Q:

AND ON THAT YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP?

# 73 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 74 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 75 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT WHAT YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP ON?

# 76 A:

YES.

# 77 Q:

THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS, WHERE DID THEY OCCUR?

# 78 A:

AT BOTH PLACES, BOTH RESIDENCES.

# 79 Q:

AT BUNDY?

# 80 A:

BUNDY, MOSTLY AT ROCKINGHAM.

# 81 Q:

HOW MANY TIMES AT BUNDY?

# 82 A:

TWICE.

# 83 Q:

AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING AT BUNDY AT THAT TIME?

# 84 A:

I WAS DOING SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT. WATCHING A MOVIE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

# 85 Q:

DID THE DEFENDANT BRING YOU WITH HIM TO BUNDY TO WATCH THE CHILDREN?

# 86 A:

NO.

# 87 Q:

THEN HOW DID YOU GET TO BUNDY?

# 88 A:

I DROVE.

# 89 Q:

YOU DROVE OVER THERE?

# 90 A:

YES.

# 91 Q:

WAS THAT AT NICOLE'S REQUEST?

# 92 A:

I -- NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS HER REQUEST. I JUST WAS -- SHOWED UP.

# 93 Q:

YOU INVITED YOURSELF?

# 94 A:

I GUESS.

# 95 Q:

AND WHEN DID THAT OCCUR?

# 96 A:

PROBABLY FOUR MONTHS BEFORE.

# 97 Q:

LIKE IN FEBRUARY OF '94?

# 98 A:

YEAH.

# 99 Q:

DIDN'T YOU ALSO -- DIDN'T YOU EARLIER TESTIFY, SIR, THAT YOU AND NICOLE -- YOUR RELATIONSHIP WENT THROUGH A MAJOR CHANGE AFTER YOU MOVED INTO ROCKINGHAM?

# 100 A:

YES.

# 101 Q:

AND THAT YOU WERE NO LONGER FRIENDLY? DO YOU REMEMBER TESTIFYING TO THAT?

# 102 A:

I WAS FRIENDLY.

# 103 Q:

BUT SHE WAS NOT.

# 104 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 105 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 106 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

UMM, PROBABLY NOT AS FRIENDLY AS BEFORE, YES.

# 107 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: YES. YOU RECALL TESTIFYING THAT SHE TOLD YOU SHE FELT YOU HAD BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE DEFENDANT?

# 108 A:

YES.

# 109 Q:

AND SO THE LAST TIME YOU VISITED HER HOUSE WAS FEBRUARY?

# 110 A:

I THINK SO.

# 111 Q:

DID SHE ASK YOU NOT TO COME BY ANY MORE?

# 112 A:

I DON'T REMEMBER HER SAYING THAT.

# 113 Q:

BUT YOU DIDN'T?

# 114 A:

I DIDN'T GO BY, NO.

# 115 Q:

AND AFTER THAT TIME DID YOU CALL HER EVER?

# 116 A:

YEAH, A FEW TIMES.

# 117 Q:

WHEN?

# 118 A:

THE DATE I DON'T KNOW, BUT AFTER FEBRUARY. PROBABLY IN MARCH.

# 119 Q:

DID YOU EVER CALL HER AGAIN AFTER MARCH?

# 120 A:

THERE WERE SOME EVENT THAT WAS HELD AT THE HOUSE FOR THE SUNSHINE SCHOOL AND I THINK SHE CALLED ME AND THEN SHE CAME OVER AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE WAS, BUT IT WAS AFTER MARCH WHERE I WAS PUTTING UP THE CHAIRS OR SOMETHING FOR THE EVENT.

# 121 Q:

OKAY. THAT RELATED TO THE EVENTS, DID IT NOT?

# 122 A:

YES.

# 123 Q:

SO YOU WERE NO LONGER CALLING EACH OTHER AS FRIENDS AFTER WHEN? AFTER WHAT POINT?

# 124 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, LEADING.

# 125 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 126 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AT SOME POINT DID YOU STOP CALLING EACH OTHER ON A FRIENDLY BASIS?

# 127 A:

YES.

# 128 Q:

AND WHEN WAS THAT?

# 129 A:

I WOULD SAY BEGINNING OF MARCH.

# 130 Q:

DID NICOLE TELL YOU THAT SHE HAD FELT BETRAYED BY YOU FOR MOVING IN WITH O.J.?

# 131 A:

NO, IT WAS THE -- SHE SAID I WAS MANIPULATED.

KEY QUOTE

# 132 Q:

WERE YOU WORKING BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 1994?

# 133 A:

YES.

# 134 Q:

AS WHAT?

# 135 A:

UMM, PUTTING EXTRAS IN FILMS AND GETTING A FEW PARTS IN FILM.

# 136 Q:

AND DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT HELP YOU TO GET PARTS IN FILM ON A FEW OCCASIONS?

# 137 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 138 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 139 MS. CLARK:

I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

# 140 THE COURT:

GOES TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THIS WITNESS?

# 141 MS. CLARK:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 142 THE COURT:

I WILL OVERRULE MYSELF.

# 143 MS. CLARK:

OKAY.

# 144 THE COURT:

BRIEFLY.

# 145 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

# 146 MS. CLARK:

NOT THIS.

# 147 MR. SHAPIRO:

IT WAS COVERED.

# 148 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. BRIEFLY.

# 149 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT HELP YOU TO GET ACTING ROLES BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 1994?

# 150 A:

I NEVER GOT AN ACTING ROLE THROUGH O.J.

# 151 Q:

DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT CALL TO GIVE YOU A ROLE IN FROGMAN?

# 152 A:

NO.

# 153 Q:

OR BIT PARTS ON SOME OF THE SHOWS HE WAS WORKING ON?

# 154 A:

NEVER.

# 155 Q:

NEVER?

# 156 A:

NEVER.

# 157 Q:

AFTER JUNE OF 1994 DO YOU RECALL HIM CALLING TO GET YOU PARTS ON ANY TELEVISION SHOWS OR MOVIES?

# 158 A:

NO. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENED WAS ON A KUSHNER-LOCKE, THERE IS AN AUDITION. I DIDN'T GET THE ROLE, BUT I ALREADY HAD THE AUDITION SET UP. HE MADE A CALL BUT I DIDN'T GET THE ROLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

# 159 Q:

WHEN DID HE MAKE THAT CALL FOR YOU?

# 160 A:

I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MAY.

# 161 Q:

MAY OF 1994?

# 162 A:

UH-HUH.

# 163 Q:

IS THAT YES?

# 164 A:

IT WAS CALLED OUTPOST. I MEAN KUSHNER-LOCKE WAS THE COMPANY.

# 165 THE COURT:

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO SPELL THAT?

# 166 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

K-U-S-H-N-E-R SLASH L-O-C-K-E.

# 167 MS. CLARK:

YOU MEAN HYPHEN L-O-C-K-E?

# 168 A:

HYPHEN.

# 169 Q:

THAT WAS FOR WHAT KIND OF PART?

# 170 A:

AN ACTING ROLE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE LEAD OR NOT.

# 171 Q:

IN WHAT?

# 172 A:

A FILM.

# 173 Q:

A FEATURE FILM?

# 174 A:

A FEATURE FILM.

# 175 Q:

CALLED?

# 176 A:

OUTPOST.

# 177 Q:

AND THAT IS THE ONLY TIME YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT HE MADE AN EFFORT TO GET YOU A PART?

# 178 A:

YES.

# 179 Q:

NOW, WASN'T IT -- WAS IT NICOLE THAT WAS HOME EVERYDAY AND TOOK CARE OF THE CHILDREN WHEN YOU WERE STAYING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN?

# 180 A:

YES.

# 181 Q:

AND DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE STAYING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENDANT NOT SHOWING UP TO SEE THE CHILDREN WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO?

# 182 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 183 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Kato Kaelin

SIX OR SEVEN.

Kato's admission that he only saw OJ and Nicole together six or seven times in the six months before the murders undercuts his cross-examination testimony that they had a good relationship.

Kato Kaelin

I GUESS.

Kato's response to Clark asking 'You invited yourself?' to Bundy — a candid, unguarded admission that reveals the awkward nature of his relationship with Nicole after moving into Rockingham.

Kato Kaelin

SHE SAID I WAS MANIPULATED.

Nicole told Kato he had been manipulated by OJ — suggesting she viewed his move to Rockingham as OJ pulling Kato away from her orbit.

Kato Kaelin

NEVER.

Emphatic denial that OJ ever helped him get acting roles — but moments later he concedes OJ did make a call for an audition in May 1994, directly contradicting himself.

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark methodically cornered Kato on the basis for his opinion that OJ and Nicole had a good relationship — he'd seen them together only six or seven times in six months, twice at Bundy, where he had essentially invited himself.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Kato flatly denied OJ ever helped him get acting roles ('Never. Never. Never.'), then immediately recalled that OJ did make a call to Kushner-Locke for the film 'Outpost' in May 1994 — a self-correction that exposed the earlier denial as overreach.

revealing

Lance A. Ito•Robert Shapiro•Marcia Clark

After Shapiro objected to questions about OJ helping Kato get acting roles, Ito initially sustained, then overruled himself after Clark argued it went to the nature of the relationship between defendant and witness.

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Lance A. Ito

Judge Ito interrupted to ask how to spell 'Kushner-Locke,' and Clark corrected Kato's use of 'slash' to 'hyphen.'

Kato Kaelin

Clark asked if Kato had invited himself to Nicole's house at Bundy. His reply: 'I guess.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Kato Kaelin

prior inconsistent statement

Clark exposed that Kato's claim OJ 'never' helped him get acting roles was false — he then admitted OJ called Kushner-Locke for an audition in May 1994.

⚔ Kato Kaelin

insufficient basis for opinion

Clark established that Kato's cross-examination opinion about OJ and Nicole's 'good relationship' rested on only six or seven observed interactions over six months, and that his friendship with Nicole had effectively ended by March 1994.

Objections

10 objections (7 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 5418 • 183 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103