Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 3)

📄 Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 3) — Monday, March 27, 1995

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 45 of 167

◀ Sidebar: competency and hearsay Sidebar: hostile witness ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 27, 1995 • Utterances: 278

Marcia Clark resumes redirect examination of Kato Kaelin, methodically dismantling his earlier testimony that OJ Simpson was a 'loving father' by establishing that Kaelin observed OJ with his children for a cumulative total of only three to four hours over eighteen months. Clark then confronts Kaelin with a series of contradictions between his current testimony and prior statements — grand jury, trial direct, and cross — about whether OJ was 'upset,' 'angry,' or 'nonchalant' when discussing Sidney and Nicole on June 12th. The proceeding ends dramatically when Clark requests leave to treat Kaelin as a hostile witness.

# 1

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

# 2

BY MS. CLARK:

# 3 Q:

WHEN YOU WERE LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN WITH NICOLE AND HER CHILDREN, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIVING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 4 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 5 Q:

AND YOU SAW HIM INTERACT WITH THE CHILDREN ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU SAW HIM AT GRETNA GREEN?

# 6 A:

YES.

# 7 Q:

ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE LIVING WITH HER ON GRETNA GREEN DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN?

# 8 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 9 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 10 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

UMM, AT THE ACTUAL GRETNA GREEN, ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN TIMES.

# 11 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND THAT WAS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR?

# 12 A:

AT -- ON THE HOUSE. IN THE HOUSE.

# 13 Q:

AND THAT WAS IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR?

# 14 A:

OH, YES, IT IS.

# 15 Q:

AND WHERE ELSE DID YOU SEE HIM WITH THE CHILDREN, ALONE WITH THE CHILDREN?

# 16 A:

WELL, IF HE WAS -- I WOULDN'T BE AROUND IF HE HAD THE CHILDREN. SO I -- I WOULDN'T KNOW.

# 17 Q:

SO THE ONLY TIMES YOU SAW HIM WITH THE CHILDREN WAS WHEN HE CAME TO VISIT THEM AT GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 18 A:

YES.

# 19 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. LEADING.

# 20 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 21 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

YES.

# 22 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN HE VISITED WITH THE CHILDREN ON GRETNA GREEN PHYSICALLY?

# 23 A:

HANGING OUT IN THE HOUSE OR IN THE GUEST HOUSE.

# 24 Q:

IN THE GUEST HOUSE. AND WHERE WOULD HE BE WITH THE CHILDREN ON THOSE OCCASIONS?

# 25 A:

IN THE HOUSE.

# 26 Q:

SO -- HOW MANY OCCASIONS DID IT OCCUR, ON HOW MANY TIMES DID IT OCCUR THAT HE CAME TO VISIT THE CHILDREN, HE WAS IN THE HOUSE WITH THEM AND YOU WERE BACK IN THE GUEST HOUSE?

# 27 A:

CAN YOU SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

# 28 Q:

YOU SAID YOU SAW HIM AT GRETNA GREEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR SIX OR SEVEN TIMES; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 29 A:

YES.

# 30 Q:

OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN TIMES, HOW MANY OF THEM INVOLVED THE DEFENDANT BEING IN THE HOUSE, THE MAIN HOUSE WITH THE CHILDREN WHILE YOU WERE BACK IN THE GUEST HOUSE?

# 31 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 32 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 33 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

ALL OF THEM I --

# 34 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ALL OF THEM. SO FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU ACTUALLY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN? AN HOUR? FIVE MINUTES? 10 MINUTES?

# 35 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. VAGUE.

# 36 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 37 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

AN HOUR.

# 38 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU OBSERVE HIM WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR ON EACH OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS?

# 39 A:

NO.

# 40 Q:

HOW LONG DID YOU OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT -- WHAT'S THE LONGEST -- STRIKE THAT. WAS AN HOUR THE LONGEST TIME YOU EVER OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT IN THE COMPANY OF THE CHILDREN?

# 41 A:

YOU MEAN LIKE A STRAIGHT HOUR --

# 42 Q:

YES.

# 43 A:

-- SEEING? YES.

# 44 Q:

ON OTHER OCCASIONS, WOULD YOU OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR MAYBE FIVE MINUTES?

# 45 A:

YES.

# 46 Q:

HOW MANY OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN OCCASIONS DID YOU ACTUALLY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT INTERACT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR?

# 47 A:

PROBABLY TWICE.

# 48 Q:

OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR YOU SPENT AT GRETNA GREEN THEN, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT ON TWO OCCASIONS WITH THE CHILDREN FOR ONE HOUR; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 49 A:

YES.

# 50 Q:

AND ON THE OTHER FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN FOR WHAT; FIVE, 10 MINUTES?

# 51 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

# 52 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 53 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

I -- IT WOULD BE OFF AND ON FOR ABOUT 15 TO 20, KIND OF -- IN THE -- YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE THROUGH MY PLACE INTO THE HOUSE. BUT I MEAN I COULD SEE. I WASN'T INTERACTING. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

# 54 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT I MEAN IS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN AND HOW HE INTERACTED WITH THEM FOR AN UNBROKEN PERIOD OF TIME.

# 55 A:

ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES.

# 56 Q:

SO ON FOUR TO FIVE OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE CHILDREN AT GRETNA GREEN FOR 10 TO 15 MINUTES?

# 57 A:

YEAH, ABOUT. YES.

# 58 Q:

AND ON TWO OCCASIONS, ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS, YOU OBSERVED HIM WITH THE CHILDREN FOR AN HOUR?

# 59 A:

YES.

# 60 Q:

SO FOR -- YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT OVER A PERIOD OF A YEAR SPENDING TIME WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR THREE TO FOUR HOURS?

# 61 A:

YES.

# 62 Q:

TOTAL.

# 63 A:

MY OBSER -- YES.

# 64 Q:

YES. AND ON THAT, YOU BASE YOUR OPINION THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A LOVING FATHER?

KEY QUOTE

# 65 A:

THAT'S NOT WHAT I BASED IT ON, NO.

KEY QUOTE

# 66 Q:

THAT'S WHAT YOU -- YOU OBSERVED HIM FOR A PERIOD OF THREE TO FOUR HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF ONE YEAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 67 A:

YES. YES.

# 68 Q:

THAT'S THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE OF THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 69 A:

YES.

# 70 Q:

AND SO WHEN YOU OFFERED YOUR OPINION TO THIS JURY OF THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN, THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH YOU BASE THAT OPINION; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 71 A:

YES.

# 72 Q:

WHEN YOU WENT TO LIVE AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU WERE NO LONGER LIVING WITH THE CHILDREN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 73 A:

CORRECT.

# 74 Q:

AND ON OCCASION, THE CHILDREN WOULD COME TO VISIT ROCKINGHAM?

# 75 A:

UH, YES.

# 76 Q:

AND WHEN THEY DID, WOULD YOU TAKE CARE OF THEM OFTEN?

# 77 A:

UMM, NOT OFTEN. IF THEY WERE THERE, I WOULD HANG OUT WITH THEM, YES.

# 78 Q:

AND ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD DID YOU SEE THE CHILDREN IN THE COMPANY OF THE DEFENDANT?

# 79 A:

UMM, FOUR, FIVE TIMES.

# 80 Q:

AND FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME ON EACH OF THOSE OCCASIONS DID YOU SEE THEM IN THE COMPANY OF THE DEFENDANT?

# 81 A:

OF THOSE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES IN THE COMPANY OF -- UH, WELL, HE WOULD BE WITH THEM. YOU WANT MINUTES YOU MEAN?

# 82 Q:

YES.

# 83 A:

WELL, ABOUT 15 MINUTES WHEN I WAS THERE.

# 84 Q:

OKAY. 15 MINUTES ON EACH OF THOSE FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS WHILE YOU STAYED AT ROCKINGHAM DURING WHICH YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS CHILDREN.

# 85 A:

RIGHT. IF I DIDN'T GO OFF SOMEWHERE. BUT YES.

# 86 Q:

SO ALL TOLLED, YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE HOUR WITH HIS CHILDREN?

# 87 A:

NO. IT'S MORE.

# 88 Q:

FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS, 15 MINUTES EACH?

# 89 A:

OH, BUT I'M THINKING OF -- BUT I MENTIONED WE WENT TO A -- UH, LIKE AN EVENT TOGETHER AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY -- THEY WERE TOGETHER BUT SPREAD OUT. SO -- BUT THAT WAS LIKE AN EVENT THAT LASTED LIKE FOUR HOURS.

# 90 Q:

RIGHT. BUT THAT'S --

# 91 A:

SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT WASN'T --

# 92 Q:

I'M ASKING YOU FOR THE TIMES WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT PLAYING AND INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN.

# 93 A:

OKAY.

# 94 Q:

RIGHT?

# 95 A:

RIGHT.

# 96 Q:

YOU GOT THAT? THE EVENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY ALL WENT TO FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR HOURS, THE DEFENDANT WAS OFF DOING THINGS AND MEETING PEOPLE, WASN'T HE?

# 97 A:

YES.

# 98 Q:

AND THE CHILDREN, YOU WERE WATCHING THEM FOR HIM, WEREN'T YOU?

# 99 A:

YES.

# 100 Q:

ALL RIGHT. THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE AN OCCASION WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN; WOULDN'T YOU SAY?

# 101 A:

WELL, YES. AND THEN -- INTERACTING AND THEN GOING OFF AND DOING THINGS. SO YES.

# 102 Q:

IT WAS BRIEF SPORADIC MOMENTS HE WOULD BE WITH THE CHILDREN, AND THEN HE WOULD GO OFF AND DO WHAT HE HAD TO DO?

# 103 A:

YES.

# 104 Q:

AND YOU WERE WATCHING THEM FOR HIM, WEREN'T YOU?

# 105 A:

YES.

# 106 Q:

SO OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ESTIMATE THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN FOR A SUM TOTAL OF AN HOUR AND A HALF?

# 107 A:

UH, YES.

# 108 Q:

SO YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN OVER THE PERIOD OF A YEAR FOR TWO TO THREE HOURS IN 1993; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 109 A:

YES.

# 110 Q:

AND YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT INTERACTING WITH HIS CHILDREN OVER THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ON ROCKINGHAM FOR A SUM TOTAL OF AN HOUR AND A HALF; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 111 A:

YES.

# 112 Q:

AND THAT IS THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR OPINION OF HIS -- THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 113 A:

UH, YES.

# 114 Q:

NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T LIKE THE IDEA OF YOU LIVING ON BUNDY WITH NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 115 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 116 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 117 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WELL, WHEN NICOLE DECIDED TO MOVE TO BUNDY, SHE ASKED -- DIDN'T SHE ASK YOU TO MOVE INTO THE EXTRA BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS?

# 118 A:

ON BUNDY, YES.

# 119 Q:

AND THE AGREEMENT, WAS THAT GOING TO BE THE SAME AS BEFORE, 500 BUCKS A MONTH FOR THE RENT?

# 120 A:

YES.

# 121 Q:

AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR BEDROOM AND A BATHROOM; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 122 A:

YES.

# 123 Q:

DOES THAT LOCATION HAVE A SWIMMING POOL?

# 124 A:

NO.

# 125 Q:

NOW, WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT YOU GOING OVER TO LIVE WITH HER AT BUNDY?

# 126 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BOTH ON DIRECT AND CROSS.

# 127 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

# 128 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE -- DID --

# 129 MS. CLARK:

ASKED AND ANSWERED ON CROSS IS NOT AN OBJECTION.

# 130 THE COURT:

NO. BUT WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM BEING UNDER THE SAME ROOF.

# 131 MS. CLARK:

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL TO ANOTHER AREA.

# 132 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S LEAP TO THE OTHER AREA THEN.

# 133 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: THE DEFENDANT WAS -- DID HE -- THE DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE WAY IT WOULD APPEAR IF YOU WERE LIVING ON BUNDY WITH NICOLE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 134 A:

UH, YES.

# 135 Q:

HE WAS CONCERNED WITH HOW IT WOULD LOOK FOR ANOTHER MAN TO BE LIVING WITH HIS WIFE -- WITH HIS EX-WIFE; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 136 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS, YOUR HONOR.

# 137 THE COURT:

IS THIS FOUNDATIONAL FOR SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO THIS?

# 138 MS. CLARK:

YES.

# 139 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

# 140 MR. SHAPIRO:

COULD WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR?

# 141 THE COURT:

OVERRULED AT THIS POINT.

# 142 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

YES.

# 143 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: SO HIS CONCERN WAS PRIMARILY FOR HIS IMAGE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 144 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 145 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 146 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW?

# 147 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 148 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU APPEARED AT THE GRETNA GREEN LOCATION ON OCTOBER 25TH, 1993, YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT'S BRONCO OUT FRONT WITH THE FLASHERS ON PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND YOU WENT TO THE BACK OF THE AREA, YOU SAW HIM YELLING, HOW LOUD WAS THAT?

# 149 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 150 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 151 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

UMM, LOUD.

# 152 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR HIM YELLING FROM THE STREET -- FROM THE STREET?

# 153 A:

UMM, NOT WHEN I WAS COMING UP -- YOU KNOW, I HEARD IT RIGHT WHEN I GOT TO THE BACK AREA.

# 154 Q:

OKAY. WERE YOU AFRAID?

# 155 A:

WAS I AFRAID FOR --

# 156 Q:

WERE YOU AFRAID?

# 157 A:

YES.

# 158 Q:

DID YOU HEAR WHAT NICOLE WAS SAYING ON THE TELEPHONE?

# 159 A:

NO.

# 160 Q:

DID NICOLE TELL YOU THAT SHE WAS AFRAID OF THE DEFENDANT?

# 161 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 162 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 163 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WHILE YOU WERE LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN -- STRIKE THAT. KATO THE AKITA, NICOLE'S DOG --

# 164 A:

YES.

# 165 Q:

-- NOW, WAS THAT DOG COMFORTABLE AROUND --

# 166 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 167 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 168 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: KATO THE DOG, THAT DOG WAS LIVING WITH NICOLE ON GRETNA GREEN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 169 A:

YES.

# 170 Q:

AND WAS THAT DOG COMFORTABLE AROUND THE DEFENDANT?

# 171 A:

AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, YES.

# 172 Q:

DID HE EVER BARK WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAME AROUND?

# 173 A:

HE -- KATO BARKED -- IT WAS KIND OF -- HE WAS A PUPPY AT FIRST. SO HE BARKED A LOT AND THEN HE'D BE -- YEAH, HE'D BARK. BUT HE WAS -- WHEN EVERYBODY WAS TOGETHER, HE WASN'T BARKING.

# 174 Q:

DID HE BARK AT THE DEFENDANT? DID HE EVER ACT LIKE HE WAS AFRAID OF THE DEFENDANT?

# 175 A:

NO.

# 176 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 177 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 178 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WHEN THE DEFENDANT WOULD COME TO THE GRETNA GREEN LOCATION, WOULD HE PLAY WITH KATO THE DOG?

# 179 A:

PETTING AND THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CONSIDER PLAYING.

# 180 Q:

YEAH. PETTING.

# 181 A:

I MEAN --

# 182 Q:

DID HE PET THE DOG?

# 183 A:

YEAH, HE PET THE DOG.

# 184 Q:

DID THE DOG BARK AT HIM WHEN HE PETTED HIM?

# 185 A:

I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, HE BARKED.

# 186 Q:

ALL RIGHT. MR. KAELIN, YOU TOLD MR. SHAPIRO THAT THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR ON JUNE THE 12TH WAS THE SAME AS ALWAYS. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?

# 187 A:

UMM, AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF THAT DAY, I SAID THAT HE WAS TIRED AT ONE POINT AND, UH, IN THE AFTERNOON, HE WAS CONVERSATIONAL. SO YES, I SAID THAT.

# 188 Q:

OKAY. AND SO WAS HE ALWAYS UPSET? WAS THAT COMMON FOR HIM, MR. KAELIN?

# 189 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION.

# 190 THE COURT:

GROUNDS?

# 191 MR. SHAPIRO:

LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

# 192 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 193 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: REMEMBER TESTIFYING EARLIER THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS UPSET DURING THAT DAY?

# 194 A:

ABOUT A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, A LITTLE BIT UPSET, YES.

# 195 Q:

AND THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO?

# 196 A:

UMM, THERE WAS A STATEMENT ABOUT TAKING SIDNEY -- THAT NICOLE TOOK SIDNEY WHEN O.J. WAS GOING TO TALK TO HER AFTER THE RECITAL.

# 197 Q:

DO YOU RECALL DEFENDANT -- DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING THAT HE WAS UPSET AT THAT POINT?

# 198 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS, YOUR HONOR. HE'S TESTIFIED TO NUMEROUS THINGS.

# 199 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 200 MR. SHAPIRO:

I THINK IT'S CONFUSING TO THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

# 201 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 202 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

UMM, IF YOU DON'T -- CAN YOU SHOW ME AGAIN? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT -- BUT THAT PAGE I THINK I -- WHERE I SAID --

# 203 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY NOW THAT YOU --

# 204 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

# 205 MS. CLARK:

I'M GOING TO.

# 206 THE COURT:

COUNSEL GETS TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN EXAMINATION.

# 207 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN?

# 208 A:

YES.

# 209 Q:

IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY RIGHT NOW THAT YOU RECALL TESTIFYING PREVIOUSLY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE OF SIDNEY, OF TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

# 210 A:

YES.

# 211 Q:

OKAY. NOW, LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 20132 OF THE TRANSCRIPT. THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. I'M GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU. "QUESTION BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING -- DID YOU SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN HIS FEELINGS BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER THAT HE WOULD HAVE LIKED? "NO. IT WAS -- HE JUST SAID IT. IT WASN'T UNUSUAL. "WAS HE ANGRY? "NO. NOT WHEN HE SAID THAT. "WAS HE AGITATED? "NO." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT TESTIMONY?

# 212 A:

UH, YES.

# 213 Q:

AND THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT.

# 214 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 215 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 216 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

WHAT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH IS, UH, "UPSET" THE WORD, WHAT THE RANGE IS OF "UPSET" AND "ANGRY." BUT YEAH, THERE WAS LIKE UPSETNESS IN THE VOICE.

# 217 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD "UPSET," MR. KAELIN? IS THAT THE PROBLEM?

# 218 A:

NO. NO. I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

# 219 Q:

OKAY. YOU'VE TESTIFIED FOR MR. SHAPIRO THAT HE WAS NOT ANGRY OR AGITATED WHEN HE SPOKE OF SIDNEY AND THE RECITAL, AND NOW YOU'VE JUST TOLD US THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE --

# 220 A:

UH-HUH. YES.

# 221 Q:

-- OF SIDNEY AND THE RECITAL.

# 222 A:

YES.

# 223 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 224 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. ASK THE QUESTION.

# 225 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THEN -- HOW DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT, MR. KAELIN? WAS THE DEFENDANT UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE OF TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

# 226 A:

UH, THERE WAS SOME UPSETNESS, YES.

# 227 Q:

DID THAT UPSETNESS INCREASE AT SOME POINT DURING HIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU AFTER THE RECITAL?

# 228 A:

NO.

# 229 Q:

NEVER INCREASED?

# 230 A:

THE -- THE UPSETNESS AFTER RECITAL, TALKING ABOUT IT? NO.

# 231 Q:

WAS THERE ANY OTHER REMARK HE MADE ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THE RECITAL IN WHICH HE SEEMED MORE AGITATED OR UPSET THAN WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT TRYING TO SEE SIDNEY?

# 232 A:

UH, ABOUT THE DRESSES?

# 233 Q:

YES.

# 234 A:

UMM, YES. HE SAID THAT ABOUT THE -- WEARING DRESSES WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMOTHERS?

# 235 Q:

YES.

# 236 A:

YES. THERE WAS SET -- BUT THEY SET -- THERE WAS UPSETNESS, BUT IT WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT THE STATEMENT OF SIDNEY. THEY'RE -- BUT BOTH -- UPSET, BUT MORE WITH THE SIDNEY, NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE HER.

# 237 Q:

IS THAT THE WAY YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT, MR. KAELIN? IS THAT RIGHT? HE WAS MORE UPSET TALKING ABOUT SIDNEY THAN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT NICOLE? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

# 238 A:

THAT -- YES.

# 239 Q:

DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 20154 OF THE SAME VOLUME. "QUESTION: WHAT WAS -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS DEMEANOR?"

# 240 MR. COCHRAN:

WHAT LINE?

# 241 THE COURT:

I BELIEVE 21.

# 242 MS. CLARK:

I'M SORRY. LINE 14, 20154.

# 243 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: "ANSWER," YOUR QUESTION, MR. KAELIN, WAS: "ABOUT -- ASKING ABOUT SIDNEY? "QUESTION: YES. "ANSWER: IT WAS -- SHE WAS GREAT, BUT YEAH, SHE WAS GREAT AND SIDNEY WAS WONDERFUL AT THE --" QUESTION WAS, BY THE COURT, "WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR? WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR? "FINE. IT WAS, GIVE ME LIKE VERY HAPPY, NOT SAD, JUST --" DO YOU RECALL GIVING THOSE QUESTIONS -- ANSWERS?

# 244 A:

YES.

# 245 Q:

AND THAT WAS WITH REGARD TO HIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL?

# 246 A:

THAT SHE WAS GREAT, YES.

# 247 Q:

YES. AND MR. SHAPIRO THEN ASKED: "IF YOU RECALL WHAT YOU SAID TO THE GRAND JURY IN RESPONSE TO MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS? "ANSWER: RELAXED, YES. THAT HE WAS RELAXED AND NONCHALANT. "QUESTION: SO THE WORD YOU USED AND MISS CLARK ASKED YOU, DID HE SEEM TO BE AGITATED, UPSET OR NERVOUS?" QUESTION ON PAGE 20156: "CAN YOU TELL WHAT HIS DEMEANOR WAS LIKE WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING SIDNEY'S PERFORMANCE? "IT WAS NONCHALANT. IT WAS RELAXED." THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY AS YOU GAVE IT TO MR. SHAPIRO AND AS YOU GAVE IT TO THE GRAND JURY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 248 A:

UMM, YES.

# 249 Q:

AND NOW YOU'RE TESTIFYING TODAY, SIR, THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT SIDNEY.

# 250 A:

AT THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

KEY QUOTE

# 251 Q:

BUT YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT BACK ON JUNE 20TH OF 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 252 A:

UMM, YES.

# 253 Q:

AND NOW YOU REMEMBER THAT?

# 254 A:

YES.

# 255 Q:

AND WHAT ABOUT DURING THE TIME THAT SHE MADE -- THAT HE MADE THE REMARK ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES? WAS HE UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT?

# 256 A:

MORE UPSET WITH THE SIDNEY STATEMENT, BUT MAYBE JUST A BIT WITH THAT, WITH THE --

# 257 Q:

JUST A BIT? I'M SORRY?

# 258 A:

UH, YES. IF -- ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW ME --

# 259 Q:

I'M SORRY?

# 260 THE COURT:

NO. HE ASKED.

# 261 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: SO YOUR TESTIMONY NOW IS THAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT THE SIDNEY INCIDENT, BUT JUST A BIT UPSET ABOUT NICOLE, HER TIGHT DRESSES; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 262 A:

UMM, YES.

# 263 Q:

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING -- NO. I'M ASKING YOU RIGHT NOW.

# 264 A:

YES.

# 265 Q:

DIRECTING THE COURT TO PAGE -- COUNSEL TO PAGE 2001 IN VOLUME 112.

# 266 THE COURT:

2,000 --

# 267 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

IS THIS GRAND JURY?

# 268 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: NO. THIS IS YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS TRIAL, MR. KAELIN. LINE 11, MY QUESTION TO YOU: "WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DEMEANOR, HIS PHYSICAL BODY MOVEMENTS WHEN HE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES?" YOUR ANSWER: "OH, THAT HE WAS UPSET. HE MADE A POINT TO SAY THE TIGHT DRESSES THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

"QUESTION: DID YOU SEE HIM CLENCH HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH? "ANSWER: I DIDN'T SEE -- I DIDN'T SEE LIKE THAT, CLENCHING HIS -- HIS FISTS OR HIS TEETH. HE WAS UPSET. AND IT WAS LIKE -- ALL THOSE -- WEARING THOSE TIGHT OUTFITS, WHEN I MENTIONED, 'WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WHEN THEY'RE GRANDMAS?'" DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT TESTIMONY, SIR?

# 269 A:

YES.

# 270 Q:

YOU DIDN'T SAY THERE THAT HE WAS A LITTLE BIT UPSET, DID YOU?

# 271 A:

UMM, NO.

# 272 Q:

ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR TESTIMONY NOW, MR. KAELIN?

# 273 A:

NO.

# 274 Q:

WAS HE UPSET OR WASN'T HE WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT NICOLE AND HER TIGHT DRESSES?

# 275 A:

NO. NOT -- NOT REAL UPSET. IT --

# 276 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

# 277 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO TAKE THIS WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS.

KEY QUOTE

# 278 THE COURT:

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING YOU NEED TO DO AT SIDEBAR. ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Marcia Clark

AND ON THAT, YOU BASE YOUR OPINION THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A LOVING FATHER?

The devastating punchline to Clark's methodical arithmetic — reducing Kaelin's 'loving father' character testimony to three or four hours of observation over a year and a half.

Kato Kaelin

THAT'S NOT WHAT I BASED IT ON, NO.

Kaelin pushes back, but Clark has already landed the blow with the jury — he cannot articulate what else he based it on.

Kato Kaelin

WHAT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH IS, UH, 'UPSET' THE WORD, WHAT THE RANGE IS OF 'UPSET' AND 'ANGRY.' BUT YEAH, THERE WAS LIKE UPSETNESS IN THE VOICE.

Kaelin's halting equivocation captures the central credibility problem Clark is exploiting — he cannot keep his characterizations of OJ's demeanor consistent.

Marcia Clark

YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO TAKE THIS WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS.

A dramatic end to the examination — the prosecution's own witness, a key figure in establishing the timeline, is being formally designated hostile after too many contradictions.

Kato Kaelin

AT THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER.

Kaelin's explanation for why his current memory of OJ being 'upset' differs from his grand jury testimony that OJ was 'nonchalant' and 'relaxed' — unconvincing and directly contradicted by the transcript Clark reads aloud.

Evidence (5)

Informal

Trial transcript page 20132 — Shapiro cross-examination where Kaelin testified OJ was not angry or agitated when speaking of Sidney at the recital

read aloud to impeach Kaelin's current testimony

Informal

Trial transcript page 20154-20156 — Kaelin's testimony describing OJ's demeanor about Sidney as 'fine,' 'very happy,' 'relaxed,' and 'nonchalant'

read aloud to impeach

Informal

Trial transcript volume 112, page 2001, line 11 — Kaelin's own direct examination testimony that OJ 'was upset' about Nicole wearing tight dresses

read aloud to catch Kaelin contradicting himself within the same trial

Informal

Grand jury testimony — Kaelin described OJ as 'relaxed and nonchalant' when discussing Sidney's recital performance

referenced for impeachment

Informal

October 25, 1993 incident at Gretna Green — OJ's Bronco parked in the street with flashers on, OJ yelling

discussed to establish Kaelin witnessed OJ's threatening behavior toward Nicole

Notable Exchanges (4)

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark walks Kaelin through arithmetic: six or seven visits to Gretna Green, two times for an hour, four to five times for ten to fifteen minutes = three to four hours total over a year. Then repeats the exercise for the six months at Rockingham, arriving at an hour and a half. Total: roughly three to four hours of observed father-child interaction over eighteen months — the foundation for his 'loving father' opinion.

methodical and devastating

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark confronts Kaelin with three layers of prior testimony about OJ's demeanor on June 12th — grand jury ('relaxed, nonchalant'), Shapiro cross ('not angry, not agitated'), and his own direct examination testimony that OJ 'was upset' about the tight dresses. Kaelin is caught cycling between all three and attempts to parse the semantic difference between 'upset' and 'angry.'

revealing and uncomfortable

Marcia Clark•Judge Ito

Clark argues that Shapiro's 'asked and answered on cross' objection is not a valid grounds. Ito sustains the objection on different grounds but tells her to 'leap to the other area' — Clark pushes back that it's foundational, Ito relents.

procedural friction

Marcia Clark•Judge Ito

Clark asks to designate Kaelin as a hostile witness after his contradictions about OJ's upset demeanor regarding Nicole's tight dresses. Ito sends it to sidebar with the court reporter.

dramatic

Light Moments (2)

Kato Kaelin

Discussion of Kato the Akita — whether the dog 'played' with OJ or just 'petted.' Clark and Kaelin negotiate the definition of 'playing with a dog.'

Kato Kaelin

Kaelin asks 'Is this Grand Jury?' while Clark is reading from his own trial testimony — underscoring his difficulty tracking which version of his testimony is being used against him.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Kato Kaelin

prior inconsistent statements — multiple layers

Clark systematically reads Kaelin's grand jury testimony, his Shapiro cross-examination testimony, and his own direct examination back to him, showing he described OJ's demeanor on June 12th as 'relaxed and nonchalant,' 'not angry, not agitated,' and 'upset' in the same trial — forcing Kaelin to parse the difference between 'upset' and 'angry' while contradicting all three prior statements simultaneously.

⚔ Kato Kaelin

limiting the basis for character opinion testimony

Clark establishes through Kaelin's own admissions that his opinion that OJ was a 'loving father' rests on approximately three to four hours of observation over eighteen months, undermining the weight of the character testimony elicited by the defense.

Witness Demeanor

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) — preceding Clark's request to declare Kaelin hostile

Kaelin repeatedly asks to be shown the transcript pages before answering, and the court clarifies counsel controls the examination

Objections

19 objections (10 sustained, 9 overruled)

Proceeding 5428 • 278 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103