FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO COMPETENCE, SOMEONE WHO IS LIVING WITH THE FAMILY OBVIOUSLY IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS THIS. SO WHAT SHE TOLD HIM AND WHAT HE BECOMES AWARE OF IS RELEVANT TO A CHARACTER WITNESS, WHICH THE COURT IS AWARE DOES ALLOW FOR KNOWLEDGE BASED ON HEARSAY. AND THE REASON WE BELIEVE THAT THIS AREA HAS BEEN OPENED UP BY COUNSEL IS AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 20060, VOLUME 113, QUESTION, LINE 28, BY MR. SHAPIRO.
WAIT. WELL, WAIT. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS, CAN THIS WITNESS TESTIFY TO TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW UP AND PICK UP THE KIDS. THE ANSWER IS NO.
WHAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE OF THIS? THIS IS A CHARACTER WITNESS, YOUR HONOR. "IS HE A CARING FATHER?" "YES."
WELL, HE'S DEALT WITH THE KIDS, PERSONALLY SEEN THEM, EYE-BALLED, SEEN THEM TOGETHER.
WHAT KIND OF FOUNDATION DO WE HAVE FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER, OF THE CHILDREN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER?
HE'S BEEN WITH THEM. ALL THREE OF THEM HAVE BEEN TOGETHER; THE DEFENDANT, THE CHILDREN AND KATO.
THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE OF HIS FAILURE TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN BASED ON HIS INTERACTION WITH NICOLE AND THE CHILDREN IS THEN VALID IMPEACHMENT TO THAT ASSERTION. HE'S GIVING AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER HE'S A CARING AND LOVING FATHER. ALL OF THIS WAS GONE INTO OVER THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTION ON CROSS AND ALL OF THIS CHARACTER EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF ANY OF THIS? IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE AS WELL. THE COURT ALLOWED IT. ON EVERY OCCASION, THE PEOPLE OBJECTED, AND IT WAS ALLOWED IN. WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS? "WAS HE A LOVING FATHER?" "YES." "WAS HE A CARING FATHER?" "YES." WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THAT IF NOT CHARACTER? AND IF CHARACTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADMITTED, WHICH IT HAS, THEN THIS WITNESS' OPINION AND KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER IT'S BASED ON HEARSAY OR NOT, IS ADMISSIBLE IMPEACHMENT.
AND LET ME INDICATE TO THE COURT, "HAVE YOU HEARD" FORM OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PERMITTED IN CHARACTER EVIDENCE, PEOPLE VERSUS WAGNER, 13 CAL. 3D. 612.
WHICH IS WHY I POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU DID NOT PHRASE THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY.
I SHOULD HAVE PHRASED IT MORE APPROPRIATELY. I AGREE WITH THE COURT. I WAS TIRED. IT WAS THE END OF THE DAY AND SOMETIMES WE MAKE MISTAKES. I DON'T THINK THAT IT JUSTIFIED ANY FINDING OF BAD FAITH ON OUR PART BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A WITNESS WHO WILL SO TESTIFY. AND THE POINT OF THE QUESTION WAS TO GO INTO CHARACTER EVIDENCE. I SHOULD HAVE PHRASED IT MORE APPROPRIATELY, I AGREE. BUT CERTAINLY BASED ON WHAT COUNSEL HAS BEEN ALLOWED -- COUNSEL OPENED THE DOOR VERY WIDE TO ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE. IF IT WAS A MISTAKE, THAT'S TOO BAD. HE MUST STAND BY THIS QUESTIONING. BUT THAT DOOR IS WIDE OPEN NOW. IS HE A CARING FATHER, IS HE A LOVING FATHER, GOOD FATHER, THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS. NEVERTHELESS, THIS WITNESS' OPINION IS NOW FAIR GAME FOR IMPEACHMENT AND WE HAVE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT AS WELL AS THIS WITNESS' OPINION TO IMPEACH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
KEY QUOTEBUT THIS WITNESS HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
KEY QUOTEALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
BRIAN KATO KAELIN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
BECAUSE HE HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
I SHOULD HAVE PHRASED IT MORE APPROPRIATELY. I AGREE WITH THE COURT. I WAS TIRED. IT WAS THE END OF THE DAY AND SOMETIMES WE MAKE MISTAKES.
COUNSEL OPENED THE DOOR VERY WIDE TO ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE. IF IT WAS A MISTAKE, THAT'S TOO BAD. HE MUST STAND BY THIS QUESTIONING.
BUT THIS WITNESS HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.