Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 4)

📄 Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 4) — Monday, March 27, 1995

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 45 of 167

◀ Sidebar: hostile witness Marking exhibits ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 27, 1995 • Utterances: 295

Marcia Clark continues redirect examination of Kato Kaelin after declaring him a hostile witness, pressing him on his changed testimony about OJ's emotional state regarding Nicole. Clark probes the mysterious black knapsack, a cell phone call OJ allegedly made to Nicole from the Riviera Country Club, Kaelin's phone calls from OJ and attorney Weitzman immediately after his police interview, and a recital photograph showing no injury on OJ's hand. A lengthy sidebar erupts over Clark's attempt to link a female witness who saw OJ angry on his cell phone at the country club to cell phone records showing a 4-minute call to Nicole at 2:18 PM.

# 1 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE'S CERTAIN RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT REGARD HOW A WITNESS CAN BE QUESTIONED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES, AND THE RULES IN CALIFORNIA ALLOW FOR THE COURT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL TO CHANGE HOW ONE PARTY QUESTIONS THE WITNESS. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD, HOWEVER, MISS CLARK'S COMMENT TO THE COURT THAT MR. KAELIN IS A, QUOTE, HOSTILE WITNESS. DISREGARD THAT COMMENT BY HER. MISS CLARK.

# 2 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UPSET WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES AT THE RECITAL.

# 3 A:

UMM, YES.

# 4 Q:

AND IS IT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING THAT TOPIC?

# 5 A:

YEAH. I MEAN I CAN DO THE VOICE, KIND OF WHAT IT WAS LIKE.

# 6 Q:

YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE YOUR VOICE SOUND LIKE HIS?

# 7 A:

NO.

# 8 Q:

THANK YOU. NOW, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT HE WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT SIDNEY THAN HE WAS ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES?

# 9 A:

YES.

# 10 Q:

BUT THAT WAS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE, WAS IT, MR. KAELIN?

# 11 A:

NO.

# 12 Q:

EARLIER, YOU HAD TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS RELAXED AND NONCHALANT WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

# 13 A:

THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.

# 14 Q:

AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY DURING THIS TRIAL THAT HE WAS MORE UPSET ABOUT NICOLE WEARING THE TIGHT DRESSES THAN HE WAS ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE SIDNEY? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

# 15 A:

YES.

# 16 Q:

AND NOW YOU'RE CHANGING THAT TESTIMONY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING, SIR?

# 17 A:

I -- YES.

# 18 Q:

NOW, WAS IT ON -- IT WAS ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH THAT HE TOLD YOU MORE THAN ONCE THAT HE WAS UPSET WITH NICOLE -- HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 19 A:

YES.

# 20 Q:

AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT?

# 21 A:

IT WAS AFTERNOON.

# 22 Q:

AND WAS THAT ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON?

# 23 A:

YES.

# 24 Q:

AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT, WAS HE UPSET?

# 25 A:

NO.

# 26 Q:

HE WAS NOT UPSET?

# 27 A:

HE WAS SAYING IT WAS OVER.

# 28 Q:

AND WHAT -- AND WHAT WAS IT THAT CAUSED HIM TO BRING UP THAT SUBJECT, THAT IT WAS THROUGH -- HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE?

# 29 A:

IT JUST CAME UP.

# 30 Q:

YOU DON'T REMEMBER HOW?

# 31 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A PHONE CALL OR WHAT. IT JUST CAME UP. I WAS JUST READING THE PAPER AND IT CAME UP.

# 32 Q:

ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. KAELIN, THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE ON HIS CELL PHONE WHILE HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB IN WHICH HE HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH HER?

# 33 A:

NO.

# 34 Q:

HE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

# 35 A:

NO, HE DIDN'T.

# 36 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

# 37 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: MR. SIMPSON DID NOT TELL YOU THAT --

# 38 THE COURT:

WAIT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

# 39 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 40 THE COURT:

WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. WHERE DID THIS ONE COME FROM?

# 41 MS. CLARK:

CELL PHONE RECORDS AND A WITNESS.

# 42 THE COURT:

WHO IS THE WITNESS?

# 43 MS. CLARK:

COUNSEL HAS --

# 44 THE COURT:

WHO IS THE WITNESS?

# 45 MS. CLARK:

THE WITNESS IS SOMEONE -- I NEED MR. DARDEN BACK FOR THIS. BUT THE CELL PHONE RECORDS WILL REFLECT THE PHONE CALL FROM THE DEFENDANT'S CELL PHONE TO NICOLE'S PHONE AT 2:18 IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH. COUNSEL HAS THE CELL PHONE RECORDS.

# 46 THE COURT:

MR. DARDEN -- EXCUSE ME -- WILL YOU JOIN US, PLEASE?

# 47 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS ABOUT THE RECITAL AND ARRANGEMENT AND THE TIME TO BE THERE, AND THIS IS CLEARLY BAD FAITH.

# 48 MS. CLARK:

MAY I HAVE A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL?

# 49 THE COURT:

SURE.

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

# 51 MS. CLARK:

MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

# 52 THE COURT:

SURE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 53 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

# 54 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK.

# 55 MS. CLARK:

WHAT --

# 56 THE COURT:

MR. SHAPIRO INDICATED THAT HE FEELS THAT YOU HAVE NO BASIS, NOT A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION.

# 57 MS. CLARK:

HE HAS THE CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT INDICATE THE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE, THE FOUR MINUTES. THAT ALONE -- I MEAN WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT AND AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB USING THE CELL PHONE. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE GOOD FAITH TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE HAD SPOKEN TO OR HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH NICOLE, WHETHER HE TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT.

# 58 THE COURT:

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT?

# 59 MS. CLARK:

WE HAVE --

# 60 THE COURT:

I ASSUME YOU HAVE THE THREE GOLFING BUDDIES THAT HE WAS PLAYING GOLF WITH AT THE TIME.

# 61 MS. CLARK:

HE WASN'T PLAYING GOLF AT THAT TIME. HE HAD COMPLETED HIS GOLF GAME.

# 62 THE COURT:

DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING TO TELL US THAT?

# 63 MS. CLARK:

WE HAVE A WITNESS.

# 64 THE COURT:

YOU SAID YOU HAVE A WITNESS?

# 65 MS. CLARK:

WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO OBSERVED HIM ON THE CELL PHONE ANGRY, YELLING, AND WE HAVE --

KEY QUOTE

# 66 THE COURT:

WHO IS THE WITNESS?

# 67 MS. CLARK:

MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

# 69 MS. CLARK:

HE'S BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS IT.

# 70 THE COURT:

WHO IS THE WITNESS?

# 71 MS. CLARK:

WOMAN AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB WHO OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT TALKING ON HIS CELL PHONE LOOKING VERY ANGRY AND VERY UPSET. WE'VE GOT CELL PHONE RECORDS, AND SHE SAYS IT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON. SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE PHONE CALL TO NICOLE IN THE AFTERNOON USING HIS CELL PHONE. ALL THE OTHER PHONE CALLS WERE AT NIGHT. SO THERE WAS ONLY ONE CALL IT COULD HAVE BEEN. IT WAS -- WENT ON FOR FOUR MINUTES.

# 72 THE COURT:

SO THERE'S ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON?

# 73 MS. CLARK:

THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM.

# 74 THE COURT:

WHEN YOU SAY MATCH THE TIME, I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON?

# 75 MS. CLARK:

OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS, BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

# 76 THE COURT:

UH-HUH.

# 77 MS. CLARK:

HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB UNTIL ABOUT 2:30 OR SO, AND THIS WITNESS OBSERVED HIM ON HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB AND SHE THOUGHT THAT TIME WAS 4:00 O'CLOCK, BUT SHE'S UNCLEAR ON THE TIME. IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS AROUND 2:00, 2:30 WHEN HE WAS USING HIS CELL PHONE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB, AND THAT PHONE CALL WAS TO NICOLE.

# 78 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND BAD FAITH. THIS IS PUSHED BEYOND THE LIMITS OF FAIR -- PROPRIETY OF FAIR PLAY AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. THERE IS -- FIRST OF ALL, THIS WITNESS HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT. THAT'S FOR OPENERS. SO WE GO TO THE HEARSAY THING. IF THE PROPER WITNESS HAD BEEN HERE, IT WOULD STILL BE AN IMPROPER QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S AT LEAST AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTE TIME DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE TIME THE WITNESS PURPORTS TO SEE HIM ON THE PHONE AND TIME OF THIS ALLEGED PHONE CALL. AND WE CAN SAY AS AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT THIS PHONE CALL WAS ABOUT ARRANGING FOR THE TIMES AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CHILDREN WOULD BE TRANSPORTED AND THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR TICKETS, FOR SEATING. BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S CASE. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE AND WHAT THEY DID THURSDAY IS SANCTIONABLE AND IS CONTEMPTUOUS.

KEY QUOTE

# 79 MS. CLARK:

WELL, YOUR HONOR, MR. SHAPIRO IS RIDICULOUS. SO I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO DIGNIFY THOSE RIDICULOUS REMARKS WITH A RESPONSE. WE HAVE THE CELL PHONE RECORDS AND WE HAVE THE WITNESS THAT MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE CONVERSATIONS SHE OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT HAVING ON THE CELL PHONE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN THE CALL AT 2:18 REFLECTED ON HIS CELL PHONE BILL AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB. THIS WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR DURING THAT DAY, AND HE INDICATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL. JUST BEFORE I ASKED THE QUESTION -- HE SAID THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL, I ASKED, "WHAT PRECIPITATED HIS REMARK TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?" HE SAID THERE HAD BEEN A PHONE CALL.

I THEN ASKED HIM, "WERE YOU -- DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL HE MADE TO NICOLE THAT AFTERNOON ON HIS CELL PHONE FROM THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB IN WHICH THEY HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT, IN WHICH THEY ARGUED?" IT WAS A GOOD FAITH QUESTION BASED ON EVIDENCE WE INTEND TO PRESENT IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS A HEATED CONVERSATION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND NICOLE THAT AFTERNOON. AND THIS WITNESS SEEMED TO BE REFERRING TO THAT VERY THING, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED HIM, "DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL IN WHICH THEY HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT?" WE HAVE GOOD FAITH BELIEF -- NOT JUST GOOD FAITH BELIEF. WE HAVE PROOF THAT WE WILL PRESENT THIS TO THIS JURY TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR THAT QUESTION. NOW, THE WITNESS' RESPONSE OBVIOUSLY LED ME TO SUSPECT THAT HE MAY KNOW ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL.

# 80 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

# 81 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 82 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK.

# 83 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: MY LAST QUESTION TO YOU, MR. KAELIN, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT BEFORE THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU -- MADE THAT REMARK TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH AROUND 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE THE 12TH, THAT HE TOLD YOU HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE WHILE HE WAS AT THE RIVIERA COUNTRY CLUB ON HIS CELL PHONE?

# 84 A:

NO, HE DID NOT TELL ME THAT.

KEY QUOTE

# 85 Q:

HE DID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS HE HAD HAD WITH NICOLE DURING THAT DAY BEFORE 3:00 O'CLOCK?

# 86 A:

HE DID NOT, NO.

# 87 Q:

AFTER THE REMARK HE MADE TO YOU ABOUT HE AND NICOLE BEING THROUGH AT ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK ON JUNE THE 12TH, DID THE SUBJECT OF HE AND NICOLE BEING THROUGH COME UP AGAIN?

# 88 A:

AFTER 3:00 O'CLOCK?

# 89 Q:

YES.

# 90 A:

YES.

# 91 Q:

AND WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER THE RECITAL?

# 92 A:

AFTER.

# 93 Q:

AND AFTER THE RECITAL, HE REMARKED TO YOU THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?

# 94 A:

YES.

# 95 Q:

WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER HE TOLD YOU ABOUT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES?

# 96 A:

BEFORE OR AFTER? IT WAS IN THE SAME FRAME. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THAT LINE.

# 97 Q:

OKAY. SO HE WAS -- WAS HE -- HE WAS STILL UPSET WHEN HE TOLD YOU HE WAS -- HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH WHEN HE WAS SPEAKING TO YOU AFTER THE RECITAL?

# 98 A:

AFTER THE RECITAL, YES.

# 99 Q:

AND THEN HE TOLD YOU A THIRD TIME DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH, DIDN'T HE?

# 100 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAME UP THERE, AT THAT POINT.

# 101 Q:

WELL, DID HE EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

# 102 A:

HE DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHY. HE WAS COMMENTING ON THE DRESS.

# 103 Q:

HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND AT THAT TIME, DIDN'T HE?

# 104 A:

YES.

# 105 Q:

AND HE TOLD YOU HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER, DIDN'T HE?

# 106 A:

NO.

# 107 Q:

NO, NO. THROUGH WITH NICOLE, DIDN'T HE?

# 108 A:

OH, YES.

# 109 Q:

BUT HE WAS UPSET AND HE TOLD YOU HE WAS -- HE ACTED UPSET WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT NICOLE WEARING TIGHT DRESSES, DIDN'T HE?

# 110 A:

YES.

# 111 Q:

DID YOU ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN WHY, IF HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND AND HE WAS THROUGH WITH NICOLE, HE WAS STILL UPSET ABOUT HER TIGHT DRESSES?

# 112 A:

NO.

# 113 Q:

DID HE EXPLAIN -- AND HE ALSO TOLD YOU -- HE ALSO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HER NOT BEING ABLE TO WEAR THOSE TIGHT DRESSES WHEN SHE GOT OLDER. REMEMBER THAT?

# 114 A:

YES.

# 115 Q:

AND HE WAS STILL UPSET WHEN HE SAID THAT, WASN'T HE?

# 116 A:

UMM, YES.

# 117 Q:

DID HE EXPLAIN WHY HE WAS THINKING OR UPSET ABOUT WHETHER SHE COULD STILL WEAR THOSE TIGHT DRESSES IN HER OLD AGE IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

# 118 A:

SAY IT AGAIN?

# 119 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU WHY, EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER AND WEARING TIGHT DRESSES WHEN SHE GOT OLDER IF HE WAS THROUGH WITH HER?

# 120 A:

NO.

# 121 Q:

DID YOU ASK HIM?

# 122 A:

NO.

# 123 Q:

NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IT WAS IN MID MAY OR LATE MAY OF 1994 THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH FOR GOOD, THAT IT WAS FINALLY OVER WITH THEM?

# 124 A:

YEAH. IT HAPPENED AROUND MAY THAT THEY WERE -- I CAN'T GIVE YOU LIKE THE EXACT DATE. THEY WERE ON AND OFF AND IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THERE. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DATE.

# 125 Q:

OKAY. BUT IT WAS AROUND THE END OF MAY OF 1994 THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT'S IT, WE'RE DONE?

# 126 A:

YES.

# 127 Q:

IT'S OVER; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 128 A:

YES. IT WAS IN MAY THAT IT WAS OVER.

# 129 Q:

BUT THEN HE REMARKED TO YOU AGAIN THREE TIMES ON JUNE THE 12TH THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH?

# 130 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED.

# 131 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 132 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

# 133 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: YOU RECALL THAT THE SMALL BLACK KNAPSACK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU SAW ON THE DRIVEWAY AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM THE GARAGE, ON YOUR SECOND TRIP BACK TO THE GARAGE, RIGHT?

# 134 A:

YES.

# 135 Q:

DID YOU SEE THAT SMALL BLACK KNAPSACK WHEN YOU LEFT WITH THE DEFENDANT TO GO TO MC DONALD'S?

# 136 A:

I DID NOT SEE IT, NO.

# 137 Q:

AND YOU DIDN'T SEE IT WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM MC DONALD'S EITHER, DID YOU?

# 138 A:

I DID NOT.

# 139 Q:

NOW, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THE BLACK KNAPSACK THE FIRST TIME YOU WALKED BACK TO THE GARAGE BEFORE YOU LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 140 A:

I'M PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T NOTICE IT.

# 141 Q:

BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE WITHOUT YOU NOTICING IT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 142 A:

IT'S FAIR.

# 143 Q:

THE FIRST TIME -- THE FIRST TIME YOU NOTICED THE KNAPSACK WAS WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM THE GARAGE THE SECOND TIME YOU WENT TO CHECK FOR THE NOISES, CORRECT?

# 144 A:

YES. CORRECT.

# 145 Q:

AND THAT WAS ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 146 A:

CORRECT.

# 147 Q:

AND WHEN YOU NOTICED THAT KNAPSACK, HOW FAR WAS THE DEFENDANT FROM IT?

# 148 A:

20 FEET?

# 149 Q:

I'M SORRY?

# 150 A:

ABOUT 20 FEET.

# 151 Q:

20 FEET? WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU SAW THAT KNAPSACK?

# 152 A:

UMM, BY THE DOORWAY?

# 153 Q:

THE FRONT DOOR?

# 154 A:

BY THE -- WHERE THE GOLF CLUBS WOULD BE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN.

# 155 Q:

HE WAS IN THE ENTRYWAY OF HIS HOUSE?

# 156 A:

NOT IN THE HOUSE. JUST IN THAT SIDEWALK AREA. THAT'S WHERE I REMEMBER I THINK.

# 157 Q:

AND AFTER THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT HE WOULD GO AND GET THE KNAPSACK, YOU NEVER SAW IT AGAIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 158 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 159 Q:

NOW, THAT KNAPSACK, WAS IT BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD A KNIFE?

# 160 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION.

# 161 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 162 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WAS THAT KNAPSACK BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD BLOODY CLOTHING AND BLOODY SHOES?

# 163 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECTION.

# 164 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 165 MR. SHAPIRO:

MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

# 166 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. NO. HE'S ALREADY DESCRIBED THE DIMENSIONS OF THE BAG.

# 167 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATED EARLIER IT WAS DARK IN THE FRONT LAWN AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 168 A:

CORRECT.

# 169 Q:

AND YOU INDICATED ALSO THAT THERE WAS A STREETLIGHT, BUT IT DID NOT ILLUMINATE THE FRONT LAWN AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 170 A:

CORRECT.

# 171 Q:

AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE, MR. KAELIN, THAT THERE ARE NO LIGHTS THAT DIRECTLY LIGHT THE FRONT LAWN AREA?

# 172 A:

I'M SORRY?

# 173 Q:

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THERE ARE NO LIGHTS THAT DIRECTLY LIGHT THE FRONT LAWN AREA?

# 174 A:

CORRECT.

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

# 176 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, MR. KAELIN, YOU SPENT TIME WITH THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE THE 12TH AS YOU'VE INDICATED TO US EARLIER; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 177 A:

YES.

# 178 Q:

AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW NO INJURY TO HIS HAND ANY TIME THAT NIGHT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 179 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 180 Q:

AND DID YOU NOTICE ANY INJURY TO HIS HAND ON JUNE -- ON JUNE THE 11TH ON SATURDAY?

# 181 A:

NO.

# 182 Q:

DID YOU SEE HIM ON JUNE THE 11TH, SATURDAY?

# 183 A:

YES, I THINK SO. YES. YES. IT WAS AT -- THAT WAS THE NIGHT OF THE -- A PARTY OF A -- A BALL, RIGHT?

# 184 Q:

UH-HUH.

# 185 A:

THEN I SAW HIM SATURDAY.

# 186 Q:

YOU SAW HIM.

# 187 A:

YES.

# 188 Q:

SO THERE WAS NO INJURY TO HIS HAND ON SATURDAY EITHER, WAS THERE?

# 189 A:

NOT THAT I SAW.

# 190 Q:

I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1003. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, MR. KAELIN?

# 191 A:

I THOUGHT I SAW IT ON TELEVISION ONCE.

# 192 Q:

OKAY. IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 AT THE RECITAL FOR HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY?

# 193 A:

YES.

# 194 Q:

I WANT YOU TO EXAMINE THE PHOTOGRAPH. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE IN CLOSER ON HIS LEFT HAND. NOT THAT CLOSE. SEE ANY CUT OR INJURY ON THAT LEFT HAND, SIR?

# 195 A:

NO.

# 196 Q:

ON THE MIDDLE FINGER, SEE ANY CUT?

# 197 A:

NO, I DO NOT.

# 198 Q:

AND HE GOT BACK FROM THAT RECITAL TO ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT TIME?

# 199 A:

UMM, I BELIEVE ABOUT 6:30, 7:00.

# 200 Q:

6:30 OR 7:00?

# 201 A:

YES. THAT'S WHEN I SAW HIM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT BACK. I DIDN'T SEE HIM DRIVE UP.

# 202 Q:

NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE BY THE LIMO AT ABOUT 11:00 P.M. ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, YOU TOLD HIM -- YOU SAID EARLIER YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THE NOISES THAT YOU HEARD, THE BANGS ON YOUR WALL, YOUR PICTURE MOVING, RIGHT?

# 203 A:

YES, I DID.

# 204 Q:

AND YOU ALSO TOLD HIM THAT YOU WERE AFRAID SOMEBODY MIGHT BE OUT THERE ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY WHEN YOU LEARNED THERE HAD BEEN NO EARTHQUAKE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 205 A:

YES.

# 206 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE COVERED THIS AREA.

# 207 MS. CLARK:

THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL.

# 208 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. PROCEED.

# 209 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

# 210 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU TOLD HIM YOU WERE AFRAID SOMEONE WAS OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO EARTHQUAKE, DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL THE POLICE?

# 211 A:

NO.

# 212 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL WESTEC?

# 213 A:

NO.

# 214 Q:

WHEN HE CALLED YOU LATER FROM THE AIRPORT AT ABOUT 11:40, HE ASKED YOU TO SET THE ALARM ON THE HOUSE?

# 215 A:

YES.

# 216 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL THE POLICE?

# 217 A:

NO.

# 218 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU TO CALL WESTEC?

# 219 A:

NO.

# 220 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU TO DO ANYTHING TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THOSE BANGS ON YOUR WALL?

# 221 A:

UMM, NO.

# 222 Q:

NOW, YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH, CORRECT?

# 223 A:

CORRECT.

# 224 Q:

AND AT THE TIME YOU SPOKE TO THEM, YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT A BLOODY GLOVE HAD BEEN FOUND ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY AT ROCKINGHAM OUTSIDE YOUR WALL?

# 225 A:

CORRECT.

# 226 Q:

AND YOU DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY IN A CASE IN WHICH THE -- MR. SIMPSON WAS THE DEFENDANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 227 A:

CORRECT.

# 228 Q:

NOW, ON JUNE THE 13TH THEN, AFTER YOU -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE, YOU TOLD THEM ABOUT THE BANGS ON YOUR WALL?

# 229 A:

I DID.

# 230 Q:

AND YOU TOLD THEM YOU HEARD THOSE BANGS ABOUT 10:45?

# 231 A:

YES.

# 232 Q:

AND DID YOU ALSO TELL THEM THAT YOU HAD GONE OUT TWICE TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THOSE NOISES?

# 233 A:

YES.

# 234 Q:

AND THIS WAS AFTER YOU HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 235 A:

YES.

# 236 Q:

THIS WAS AT THE POLICE STATION WHEN THEY TOOK A FORMAL REPORT, CORRECT?

# 237 A:

CORRECT.

# 238 Q:

AND DID YOU ALSO TELL THEM ABOUT SEEING THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER AT ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK?

# 239 A:

YES.

# 240 Q:

YOU TOLD THEM ALL ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT AS YOU'VE TOLD US; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 241 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 242 Q:

THEY DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE PRIOR TO JUNE THE 12TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 243 A:

CORRECT.

# 244 Q:

THEY DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT ANY INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE, DID THEY?

# 245 A:

CORRECT.

# 246 Q:

AND THEN LATER ON THAT DAY, YOU WENT BACK TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, CORRECT?

# 247 A:

CORRECT.

# 248 Q:

AND THAT WAS AFTER THE POLICE HAD TOLD YOU NOT TO GO BACK TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

# 249 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE COVERED THIS ALREADY.

# 250 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 251 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

CORRECT.

# 252 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL, YOU GOT A PHONE CALL FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY, MR. WEITZMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 253 A:

I --

# 254 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

# 255 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 256 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

I GOT A PHONE CALL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A FEW MINUTES, BUT YES, I GOT A PHONE CALL.

# 257 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: VERY SHORTLY AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT MR. CRAMER'S HOUSE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 258 A:

CORRECT.

# 259 Q:

AND AFTER YOU GOT -- AND AT -- AFTER THAT PHONE CALL, YOU RECEIVED ANOTHER PHONE CALL FROM MR. WEITZMAN AND THE DEFENDANT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 260 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

# 261 Q:

AND WHEN YOU RECEIVED THOSE PHONE CALLS, YOU MADE GRANT CRAMER LEAVE THE ROOM, DIDN'T YOU?

# 262 A:

I DON'T KNOW. I WAS IN A DIFFERENT ROOM AND HE WASN'T AROUND. I DON'T THINK I ASKED HIM, BUT I WAS ALONE. HE WASN'T -- HE WAS IN A DIFFERENT AREA.

# 263 Q:

YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM TO LEAVE YOU ALONE WHILE YOU SPOKE TO THEM?

# 264 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

# 265 Q:

YOU DON'T BELIEVE SO?

# 266 A:

I -- I COULD HAVE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

# 267 Q:

YOU DON'T REMEMBER. YOU COULD HAVE?

# 268 A:

I COULD HAVE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

# 269 Q:

AND IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AND THE DEFENDANT, DID MR. WEITZMAN ASK YOU WHAT HAD HAPPENED AT THE POLICE STATION?

# 270 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 271 THE COURT:

HAVEN'T WE GONE OVER THIS ONCE BEFORE?

# 272 MS. CLARK:

NOT THIS PART, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS DIFFERENT AND TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE -- IS DIFFERENT THAN I'VE GONE INTO. IT IS.

# 273 THE COURT:

PROCEED.

# 274 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

I THINK SO, YES.

# 275 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: MR. WEITZMAN ASKED YOU WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE POLICE, DIDN'T HE?

# 276 A:

I THINK SO.

# 277 Q:

AND THEN HE SAID -- AND THEN YOU SAID TO HIM, "ALL I CAN DO IS TELL THE TRUTH"; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 278 A:

I SAID THAT, YES. THEY BOTH DID AND I SAID THAT THOUGH.

KEY QUOTE

# 279 Q:

AND THAT'S WHEN -- AND AFTER YOU TOLD HIM WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE POLICE, THAT'S WHEN YOU SAID, WELL, ALL YOU CAN DO IS TELL THE TRUTH; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 280 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

# 281 Q:

AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE, YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT YOU WERE INCRIMINATING THE DEFENDANT WITH YOUR STATEMENTS, DID YOU?

# 282 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 283 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 284 MR. SHAPIRO:

CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MAY WE APPROACH?

# 285 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. NO.

# 286 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU -- WHEN YOU REVIEWED THE POLICE REPORT THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN OF YOUR STATEMENT GIVEN ON JUNE THE 13TH, THAT YOU MADE SOME CORRECTIONS TO IT?

# 287 A:

YES, I DID.

# 288 Q:

AND DID YOU SEE THE CORRECTIONS IN THE REPORT, A SUBSEQUENT REPORT THAT THEY FILED FOR YOU?

# 289 A:

I -- YEAH, I SAW. I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I REMEMBER THEY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS I THINK.

# 290 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE DISCOVERY PAGES 347, 348, 349 AND 707 CONTAINING THE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE OF BRIAN KAELIN MADE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND ON JUNE THE 17TH. I WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S --

# 291 THE CLERK:

144.

# 292 THE COURT:

144.

# 293 MS. CLARK:

144?

# 294 THE COURT:

144.

# 295 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Kato Kaelin

I -- YES.

Kaelin admits under direct questioning that he is changing his trial testimony about whether OJ was more upset about Sidney versus Nicole's tight dresses — a rare, explicit concession of changed testimony.

Kato Kaelin

I SAID THAT, YES. THEY BOTH DID AND I SAID THAT THOUGH.

Kaelin confirms he told OJ and attorney Weitzman 'all I can do is tell the truth' after they called him at Grant Cramer's house and asked what he had told police — suggesting pressure from the defense camp immediately post-interview.

Marcia Clark

WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO OBSERVED HIM ON THE CELL PHONE ANGRY, YELLING.

Clark reveals at sidebar the existence of an unnamed female Riviera Country Club witness who allegedly saw OJ in an angry phone call, corroborating a 2:18 PM cell phone record call to Nicole — key to establishing pre-crime emotional state.

Robert Shapiro

THIS IS BEYOND BAD FAITH. THIS IS PUSHED BEYOND THE LIMITS OF FAIR -- PROPRIETY OF FAIR PLAY AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.

Shapiro's explosive sidebar accusation — claiming Clark's cell phone line of questioning is sanctionable and contemptuous — reflects how high-stakes the prosecution's attempt to establish an angry confrontation between OJ and Nicole that afternoon was.

Kato Kaelin

NO, HE DID NOT TELL ME THAT.

Kaelin flatly denies OJ ever mentioned a cell phone call or argument with Nicole from the Riviera Country Club — directly contradicting the prosecution's theory and the evidence they plan to present.

Evidence (5)

Defendant's 1003

Photograph of OJ Simpson at Sidney's dance recital on June 12, 1994, used to examine his left hand for injury

discussed; Kaelin states he sees no cut or injury on OJ's left hand or middle finger in the photo

People's 144

Collectively marked police reports of Kaelin's statements made June 13 and June 17, 1994 (discovery pages 347, 348, 349, and 707)

introduced and marked

Informal

OJ's cell phone records showing a 4-minute call to Nicole at 2:18 PM on June 12 from the Riviera Country Club

discussed at sidebar; prosecution uses to assert good-faith basis for questioning Kaelin about an angry conversation

Informal

Small black knapsack seen by Kaelin on the Rockingham driveway around 11:00 PM on June 12

discussed; Clark attempts to ask about its capacity to hold a knife or bloody clothing — both objections sustained

Informal

Bloody glove found on the south pathway at Rockingham outside Kaelin's wall

referenced; Clark establishes Kaelin did not know about it when he first spoke to police

Notable Exchanges (4)

Marcia Clark•Robert Shapiro•Lance A. Ito

Extended sidebar battle over Clark's question about OJ's cell phone call to Nicole from the Riviera Country Club. Shapiro calls it 'beyond bad faith' and 'sanctionable.' Clark defends it with cell phone records and a female witness who saw OJ angry on the phone. Ito overrules the objection after Clark establishes her good-faith basis.

heated

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark systematically walks Kaelin through his changed testimony — he now says OJ was more upset about Sidney than Nicole's tight dresses, the opposite of what he testified before. Kaelin admits 'I -- YES' when Clark asks if he is changing his testimony.

revealing

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark establishes that when Kaelin told OJ about scary bangs on his wall and feared someone was on the south pathway, OJ never told him to call police, call WESTEC, or investigate — and similarly gave no such instruction when calling from the airport at 11:40 PM.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark elicits that OJ and attorney Weitzman called Kaelin very shortly after he arrived at Grant Cramer's house following his police interview, that Kaelin may have asked Cramer to leave the room, and that Weitzman asked what Kaelin had told police — to which Kaelin replied 'all I can do is tell the truth.'

revealing

Light Moments (2)

Kato Kaelin

Kaelin offers to do an impression of OJ's voice when describing OJ's upset tone about Nicole — then immediately backs off when Clark asks if he can really mimic him.

Kato Kaelin

Kaelin has a momentary brain glitch when Clark asks if OJ told him he was 'through with her' — Kaelin initially thinks 'her' means his girlfriend, not Nicole, and has to be corrected.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Kato Kaelin

prior inconsistent statement

Clark confronts Kaelin with his earlier trial testimony that OJ was more upset about Nicole wearing tight dresses than about not seeing Sidney — the direct opposite of what Kaelin now claims. Kaelin admits he is changing his testimony.

⚔ Kato Kaelin

bias / possible defense influence

Clark establishes that OJ and his attorney Weitzman called Kaelin at Grant Cramer's house very shortly after his police interview, asked what he told police, and Kaelin may have cleared the room for privacy — suggesting potential coaching or pressure from the defense.

Witness Demeanor

Evasive on changed testimony ('I -- YES' after visible hesitation)

Uncertain and hedging on multiple answers ('I could have, but I don't remember')

Occasionally confused by Clark's questions, asking her to repeat them

Seen on television prior to this — 'I thought I saw it on television once' regarding Defendant's 1003 photograph

Objections

9 objections (4 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 5430 • 295 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103