Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 5)

📄 Redirect examination of Brian Kato Kaelin (part 5) — Monday, March 27, 1995

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 45 of 167

◀ Marking exhibits Recross-examination of Brian Kato Kaelin ▶

Witness: Brian "Kato" Kaelin
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 27, 1995 • Utterances: 122

Marcia Clark's redirect of Kato Kaelin focuses on two goals: authenticating his police statements (People's 144) and establishing that he cannot account for OJ Simpson's whereabouts during the critical 9:35–11:00 PM window on June 12th. Clark also probes whether defense attorneys coached Kaelin or orchestrated his return to Rockingham on June 13th — and elicits a damaging admission that the only conversation Kaelin had with Simpson that day concerned whether Kato could say OJ was home during the murder window.

# 1 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: SIR, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE POLICE REPORTS THAT I'VE JUST MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 144 AND ASK YOU TO REVIEW THEM AND TELL US IF THESE ARE THE STATEMENTS YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE, BOTH THE ORIGINAL REPORT AND THE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU REQUESTED THEY MAKE.

# 2 A:

DO I READ THIS TOO?

# 3 THE COURT:

YES.

# 4 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

THAT PAGE AS WELL, READ IT? THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING?

# 5 THE COURT:

MISS CLARK, THE WITNESS HAS A QUESTION AS TO THE LAST PAGE.

# 6 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THAT?

# 7 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. HAVE YOU READ THEM? NO, IT'S OKAY. HAVE YOU READ ALL OF THESE, MR. KAELIN?

# 8 A:

YES, I DID.

# 9 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND ARE THESE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF ALL OF YOUR STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE MADE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE THE 17TH?

# 10 A:

YEAH. PRETTY MUCH, YES.

# 11 Q:

OKAY. AND THE REPORT ON JUNE THE 17TH, DOES THAT CONTAIN THE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU WANTED THEM TO PUT DOWN TO YOUR JUNE 13TH REPORT?

# 12 A:

WITH THE ADDRESS CHANGE, YES, I THINK SO, AND I PUT THE BAG IN THE CAR, NOT THE LIMO DRIVER. YES.

# 13 Q:

YES. AND THAT IT WAS SEVERAL MOMENTS LATER AFTER YOU WAVED AT THE LIMO DRIVER WHEN YOU APPROACHED THE GATE AND SPOKE TO THE DRIVER?

# 14 A:

YES.

# 15 Q:

IS -- ARE THOSE THE --

# 16 A:

YES.

# 17 Q:

-- CORRECTIONS YOU REQUESTED THEY MAKE?

# 18 A:

YES.

# 19 Q:

SO DO THESE REPORTS ACCURATELY CONTAIN THE STATEMENT YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE ON JUNE THE 13TH AND JUNE THE 17TH?

# 20 A:

YES.

# 21 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, THAT YOU HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. SHAPIRO A FEW WEEKS AGO. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 22 A:

YES, I DID.

# 23 Q:

WAS IT TAPE-RECORDED?

# 24 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

# 25 Q:

WERE ANY NOTES TAKEN?

# 26 A:

I -- HE HAD A BOOK OPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF HE TOOK NOTES. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO.

# 27 Q:

WAS ANY REPORT PREPARED?

# 28 A:

NO.

# 29 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IN COURT HERE?

# 30 A:

A GENERAL OUTLINE SORT OF.

# 31 Q:

ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS THAT HE WOUND UP ASKING HERE IN COURT?

# 32 A:

JUST SOME.

# 33 Q:

DID YOU HAVE ANY MEETINGS WITH MR. SHAPIRO LAST WEEK, WEDNESDAY NIGHT?

# 34 A:

LAST WEEK WEDNESDAY NIGHT? NO.

# 35 Q:

THURSDAY NIGHT?

# 36 A:

NO.

# 37 Q:

ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF BUDDY MONASH?

# 38 A:

YES.

# 39 Q:

DID YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH MR. MONASH, SIR, LAST WEEK?

# 40 A:

NO.

# 41 Q:

HOW ABOUT THE WEEK BEFORE?

# 42 A:

NO.

# 43 Q:

HOW ABOUT OVER THIS WEEKEND? DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. MONASH OVER THIS WEEKEND?

# 44 A:

NO.

# 45 Q:

WHO IS MR. MONASH?

# 46 A:

UH, BUDDY MONASH -- I'M WITH MICHAEL PLOTKIN ENTERTAINMENT, WHO'S HERE, AND IT'S HIS PARTNER.

# 47 Q:

OKAY. AND DID YOU -- DID YOUR -- SO BUDDY MONASH, IS HE ONE OF YOUR LAWYERS?

# 48 A:

NO. MICHAEL IS. HE'S AT THE FIRM, BUT MICHAEL PLOTKIN IS MY ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER. HE'S HERE.

# 49 Q:

AND HE'S HERE, RIGHT.

# 50 A:

YES.

# 51 Q:

AND SO BUDDY MONASH WORKS WITH MICHAEL PLOTKIN, WHO IS YOUR LAWYER; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 52 A:

UMM, YEAH. THEY HAVE A FIRM TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WORK THE SAME -- THE SAME THINGS TOGETHER.

# 53 Q:

HAS MICHAEL PLOTKIN MET WITH MR. SHAPIRO?

# 54 A:

UMM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

# 55 Q:

HAS BUDDY MONASH MET WITH MR. SHAPIRO?

# 56 A:

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

# 57 Q:

WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT ON MONDAY EVENING AT ROCKINGHAM -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, YOU GOT AT LEAST TWO PHONE CALLS FROM THE DEFENDANT AND HIS LAWYER, MR. WEITZMAN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 58 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE COVERED THIS FIVE TIMES.

# 59 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 60 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

# 61 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND THE DEFENDANT ASKED YOU TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 62 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE ALSO.

# 63 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 64 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

I -- I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT, TO GO OVER TO THE HOUSE FOR A MEETING.

# 65 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT?

# 66 A:

I -- I DON'T.

# 67 Q:

WAS IT MR. WEITZMAN THAT ASKED YOU TO GO OVER AND HAVE A MEETING AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH?

# 68 A:

I -- IT COULD --

# 69 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 70 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 71 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.

# 72 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: SOMEONE ON THE TELEPHONE WHO CALLED YOU FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON JUNE THE 13TH WHILE YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S PLACE ASKED YOU TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING THAT DAY, DIDN'T THEY?

# 73 A:

I CAN'T BE 100 PERCENT POSITIVE. I CAN'T. I MEAN I DON'T REMEMBER.

# 74 Q:

YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, DIDN'T YOU?

# 75 A:

AT SOME POINT, YES.

# 76 Q:

AND I POINTED OUT A FILM CLIP TO YOU OF THE SHIRT YOU WERE WEARING?

# 77 A:

UH-HUH.

# 78 Q:

IS THAT RIGHT?

# 79 A:

YES.

# 80 Q:

AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DIDN'T CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES FOR THREE DAYS, DIDN'T YOU, SIR?

# 81 A:

NO.

# 82 Q:

YOU INDICATED YOU WORE THAT SAME SHIRT FOR TWO DAYS, TWO OR THREE DAYS?

# 83 A:

COULD HAVE BEEN -- YEAH, I COULD HAVE BEEN -- I -- YES. TWO DAYS. I THINK I DID.

# 84 Q:

OKAY. SO YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM AND YOU WORE THE SAME SHIRT FOR TWO DAYS; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 85 A:

HMM.

# 86 Q:

THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SIR.

# 87 A:

YEAH, I DID. I DON'T KNOW IF I CHANGED AND PUT IT BACK ON, BUT YES, I HAD IT ON FOR TWO DAYS.

KEY QUOTE

# 88 Q:

WHO ASKED YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM FOR A MEETING ON JUNE THE 13TH?

# 89 A:

I DON'T THINK I EVER MET MR. WEITZMAN.

# 90 Q:

WHO ASKED YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH?

# 91 A:

IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CATHY RANDA, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

# 92 Q:

IT COULD HAVE BEEN CATHY. COULD IT -- COULD IT HAVE BEEN THE DEFENDANT?

# 93 A:

IT COULD HAVE.

# 94 Q:

COULD IT HAVE BEEN MR. WEITZMAN?

# 95 A:

POSSIBLE.

# 96 Q:

COULD IT HAVE BEEN ALL THREE?

# 97 A:

YES.

# 98 Q:

WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH AND YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT, WAS HE CRYING?

# 99 A:

UMM, NO.

# 100 Q:

DID HE SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE AT ALL?

# 101 A:

NO.

# 102 Q:

ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT THE ONLY CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT BACK AT ROCKINGHAM HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD SAY HE WAS AT HOME THAT NIGHT BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M.?

# 103 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 104 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 105 BRIAN "KATO" KAELIN:

UMM, SOMEWHAT, YES.

# 106 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN HE SAID THAT YOU COULD SAY -- WHEN THE DEFENDANT SAID YOU COULD SAY HE WAS AT HOME ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AND YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T SAY THAT, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, ISN'T IT? YOU COULDN'T SAY THAT HE WAS HOME BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 O'CLOCK?

# 107 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 108 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 109 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: IS IT TRUE THAT YOU COULD NOT SAY THE DEFENDANT WAS AT HOME BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 O'CLOCK?

# 110 A:

THAT'S TRUE.

# 111 Q:

YOU LEFT HIS PRESENCE AT 9:35; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 112 A:

UH, YES.

# 113 Q:

AND YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM AGAIN AND YOU WERE NOT IN HIS PRESENCE AGAIN UNTIL 11:00 P.M.; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 114 A:

THAT'S RIGHT.

# 115 Q:

AND CAN YOU TELL THIS JURY WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M., SIR?

# 116 A:

NO, I CAN NOT.

# 117 Q:

CAN YOU TELL THIS JURY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY BETWEEN 9:35 AND 11:00 P.M.?

# 118 MR. SHAPIRO:

OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH?

# 119 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 120 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

# 122 MS. CLARK:

I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Kato Kaelin

NO, I CAN NOT.

Direct answer to Clark's question of whether he can tell the jury where OJ was between 9:35 and 11:00 PM — the window when the murders occurred. This is the cleanest statement of the alibi gap.

Kato Kaelin

SOMEWHAT, YES.

Kaelin admits that the conversation with OJ at Rockingham on June 13th was 'somewhat' about whether Kato could say Simpson was home between 9:35 and 11:00 PM — directly suggesting OJ was seeking an alibi witness.

Kato Kaelin

IT COULD HAVE BEEN CATHY RANDA, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER.

Kaelin cannot say definitively who summoned him back to Rockingham — but opens the door that it could have been OJ, his lawyer Weitzman, or his personal assistant, all acting together.

Kato Kaelin

I DON'T KNOW IF I CHANGED AND PUT IT BACK ON, BUT YES, I HAD IT ON FOR TWO DAYS.

Establishes that Kaelin wore the same clothes for two days, which could be relevant to physical evidence or his state of mind in the aftermath of the murders.

Evidence (1)

People's 144

Police reports from Kaelin's statements to detectives on June 13 and June 17, 1994, including corrections Kaelin requested (address change; clarification that he put his bag in the car, not the limo driver; timing of when he approached the gate)

Introduced and authenticated by witness

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark methodically extracts that Kaelin left OJ's presence at 9:35 PM, did not see him again until 11:00 PM, and cannot tell the jury where OJ was during that window — nor can he say OJ was not at Bundy. This is the prosecution's core alibi-destruction moment.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark probes a meeting Kaelin had with Robert Shapiro 'a few weeks ago' and asks whether it was recorded, notes were taken, or a report prepared — all no. She then asks about subsequent meetings with Shapiro and someone named Buddy Monash (a partner of Kaelin's entertainment lawyer), implying witness coaching. Kaelin denies all recent contact.

probing

Marcia Clark•Kato Kaelin

Clark establishes that on June 13th, after the murders were discovered, someone from Rockingham called Kaelin at Grant Cramer's house and summoned him back — and that the only substantive conversation Kaelin had with OJ that day concerned whether Kato could vouch for OJ's whereabouts the prior night.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Kato Kaelin

Implied witness coaching / defense coordination

Clark questions whether Kaelin met with Shapiro, Buddy Monash (a partner of Kaelin's entertainment lawyer), or both in the days before or over the weekend — implying the defense had been managing his testimony. Kaelin denies all such contact.

⚔ Kato Kaelin

Prior inconsistent statement / memory inconsistency

Clark confronts Kaelin on his earlier statement that he wore the same shirt for 'two or three days,' getting him to confirm he wore it for two days despite initial denial — highlighting his unreliable memory or evasiveness.

Witness Demeanor

(BRIEF PAUSE.) after Shapiro requests to approach before the Bundy question

Kaelin's repeated hedging ('I don't know,' 'it could have been,' 'I can't be 100 percent positive') throughout questioning about who summoned him to Rockingham

Objections

6 objections (2 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 5432 • 122 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103