Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:25700 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:44 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - KATO KAELIN - 50k Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:59:41 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 1122 Sender: myra@netcom18.netcom.com Following are the Kato Kaelin sidebars. Sidebar from March 21, 1995: (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'VE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. THE OBJECTION WAS HEARSAY. AND, MISS CLARK, THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS STUFF THERE. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENTS THE DEFENDANT ATTRIBUTES TO PAULA, THAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT SHE WANTED TO GO TO THE RECITAL IN ORDER TO SHOW NICOLE THAT SHE WAS THE DEFENDANT'S GIRL, I KNOW THE OBJECTION IS HEARSAY. AND WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THE PEOPLE SIMPLY INDICATE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE -- IT'S NOT BEING ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. NEVERTHELESS, THE PEOPLE SUBMIT IT ON THAT AND ARE ONLY ASKING TO ADMIT THE STATEMENTS THE DEFENDANT MAKES CONCERNING HIS OWN STATE OF MIND. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S CLEARLY IRRELEVANT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE AND HIS RELATIONSHIP TO PAULA CANNOT BE BROUGHT OUT THROUGH THIS WITNESS. IT'S ALL HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY, ESPECIALLY AS TO WHAT PAULA WANTED TO DO. IF THEY WANT TO CALL PAULA, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO PAULA'S STATEMENTS, PEOPLE SUBMIT IT. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS FEELINGS ABOUT PAULA, WE SUBMIT THAT IS CLEARLY RELEVANT AND ADMISSION UNDER 1220. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AS TO THE MULTIPLE HEARSAY, AS TO ANYTHING PAULA BARBIERI SAID, ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION AS TO THE OTHER MATTER -- MR. COCHRAN: ADMISSION? THE COURT: ADMISSION. MR. SHAPIRO: AS TO HIS FEELINGS FOR PAULA? THE COURT: NO, NO. HIS FEELINGS FOR PAULA, HIS AMBIVALENCE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE HER AND JUST WANTING TO KEEP IT A FAMILY AFFAIR. MR. DARDEN: DOES THAT HURT YOU? MR. COCHRAN: I MEAN, IT WAS ALSO LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE WHEN IT CAME IN. **** Sidebars from March 22, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: SIDE BAR. WHAT IS THE OBJECTION, MR. SHAPIRO? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO GET AN OFFER OF PROOF. YESTERDAY WITH MR. DARDEN WE GOT INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD SIX OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED IN A ROW, YET THE INFERENCE OF THE QUESTIONS WE FELT HAD AN IMPACT ON THE CASE, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE SAME SITUATION HERE, SO WE WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF IN ADVANCE AS TO WHERE THEY ARE GOING WITH THIS WITNESS ON THESE HEARSAY QUESTIONS. MS. CLARK: THEY ARE NOT HEARSAY QUESTIONS. THESE ARE ADMISSIONS BY A DEFENDANT AND THIS WAS A SUBJECT OF AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. SHAPIRO. HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE GOING. HE HAS GOT THE TRANSCRIPT. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS. THIS WITNESS IS GOING TO TESTIFY, AND MR. SHAPIRO KNOWS IT, OR SHOULD KNOW IT VERY WELL IF HE HAS READ HIS MATERIAL, THAT THE DEFENDANT FELT THAT NICOLE WAS TRYING TO KEEP SYDNEY FROM BEING WITH HIM, BUT THAT HE MANAGED TO SEE SYDNEY FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THIS IS -- AND THEN MAKES A COMMENT ABOUT NICOLE AND THE TIGHT DRESSES SHE WORE. THIS WAS TESTIFIED TO AT THE PRELIM, AT THE GRAND JURY AND AT SHAPIRO'S INTERVIEWS, PLURAL, SO COUNSEL IS NOT IN THE DARK ABOUT ANYTHING WITH THIS WITNESS. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ALL HE ASKED FOR WAS AN OFFER OF PROOF, SO WE DON'T NEED TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS ALREADY GOT IT OR IT IS HIS INTERVIEWS AND THAT SORT OF THING. MS. CLARK: THIS IS A WITNESS, YOUR HONOR -- I THINK THE COURT DOESN'T KNOW -- THIS IS A WITNESS THAT HAS SPOKEN MORE TO MR. SHAPIRO THAN HE HAS TO US. THE COURT: THAT IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT IT IS HEARSAY AND THAT THERE IS NO VALID EXCEPTION FOR THIS TO COME IN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS NOTED AND IT IS OVERRULED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS? MS. CLARK: PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. THE COURT: OKAY. FOR -- WHAT'S YOUR OFFER AT THIS POINT? WHAT'S THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT? MS. CLARK: ACTUALLY I'LL COME BACK TO IT IS WHAT I WILL DO, OKAY. I WAS GOING TO LAY THE FOUNDATION. I'LL JUST LAY IT LATER. WITHDRAWN. THE COURT: OKAY. MS. CLARK: THANKS. **** Sidebars from March 23, 1995: (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO OBJECT AND MAKE A DISCOVERY MOTION. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE ARE INTERVIEWS AND NOTES THAT THE DEFENSE IS IN POSSESSION OF CONCERNING INTERVIEWS OF THIS WITNESS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. AND NOW THAT WE ARE AT THE MOMENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR THE DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THIS TIME, BUT NOW SINCE THEY ARE CROSS-EXAMINING HIM WITH RESPECT TO STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BETWEEN THIS WITNESS AND THE DEFENDANT, WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT -- WHICH WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO -- WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT, THROUGH THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, THAT INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED WITH PAVELIC AND HOSTETLER IN WHICH NOTES WERE TAKEN, ACCORDING TO THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WHICH THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT RECEIVED. AND THE PEOPLE MAKE A MOTION OR DISCOVERY OF THOSE NOTES AT THIS TIME. MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD OBJECT. WE DON'T THINK THAT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DISCOVERY STATUTE. THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS NOW IMPEACHMENT OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS, AND IF THOSE NOTES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS GOING ON NOW, I THINK YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TURN THOSE OVER. MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. I WILL TURN THEM INTO YOUR HONOR FOR REVIEW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU CLAIMING -- YOU ARE ASKING FOR A 1054.7 HEARING ON THIS? MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: I NEED TO SEE THOSE NOTES AND IT IS AT THE MOMENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING FOR ANOTHER DAY ANYWAY, SO YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WE WILL DO IS WHEN WE TAKE THE BREAK, I WILL ASK MR. SHAPIRO TO GIVE THE NOTES TO THE COURT, AND HOPEFULLY I WILL HAVE A CHANCE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO REVIEW THEM. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: DEPENDING ON HOW EXTENSIVE THEY ARE, HAVING NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OKAY. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, YOUR OBJECTION IS SCOPE AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: YEAH, IT IS SCOPE AND THIS IS ALL -- EXCUSE ME. THIS IS ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE, ALL -- NOW, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANT TO CALL HIM AS THEIR WITNESS IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF TO PRESENT CHARACTER EVIDENCE, THAT IS FINE. WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, THEY ARE PUTTING ON GOOD CHARACTER EVIDENCE WITH THIS WITNESS AND GOOD -- GOOD BEFORE BAD WITH THE DEFENDANT, THAT IS FINE, BUT I WANT IT VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON, BECAUSE IT IS. BECAUSE IT IS. HE WAS GENEROUS TO YOU, HE WAS NICE TO YOU, HOW ABOUT HIS FAMILY, HOW ABOUT HIS KIDS, ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE. IN THAT CASE THE DOOR IS OPENED AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PUT ON ALL OF THE BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE, AND WE HAVE GOT A TON. AND SO I WANT IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE BECAUSE THE LAST -- THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST THIRTY QUESTIONS THAT GO ONLY TO CHARACTER AND NOTHING ELSE. THE COURT: WELL, HERE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, MISS CLARK: ALL RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS PART OF YOUR CASE, THOUGH, TO -- EXCUSE ME. CAN WE HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS PART OF YOUR CASE, THOUGH, TO PORTRAY THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM, AND A LOT THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. SHAPIRO HAS ASKED WENT TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP, THE OTHER RELATIONSHIP WITH PAULA BARBIERI. I THINK IT IS PART OF WHAT OUR DISCUSSION IS HERE. MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO -- NO ARGUMENT, YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT GENEROUS WITH YOU, TREAT YOU LIKE A SERVANT, GENEROUS WITH THE FAMILY, GENEROUS WITH -- GENEROUS WITH THE WITNESS, GOES TO HIS MOTIVE, BIAS, INTEREST, EVERYTHING ELSE. I AGREE WITH YOU, I WILL PROBABLY LET SLIP BY THE QUESTION ABOUT GENEROUS WITH NICOLE BROWN'S FAMILY, BUT STILL, TANGENTIALLY, DOESN'T THAT GO TO THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP OF NICOLE AND HER FAMILY? MS. CLARK: NO. THE COURT: IT IS PRETTY CLOSE. MS. CLARK: OH, I -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: PRETTY CLOSE. MS. CLARK: WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS PUTTING THE VICTIM'S FAMILY ON TRIAL, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- THE COURT: WELL, SAYING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GENEROUS WITH THEM I DON'T HARDLY SEE. MS. CLARK: WELL, WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING, WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING, WHAT A GREAT GUY O.J. WAS AND WHAT HE DID FOR THE FAMILY AND WHAT NASTY PEOPLE THEY ARE TO COME OUT AGAINST HIM NOW. THE COURT: SOMEHOW I FEEL THAT THAT IS NOT WHERE IT IS GOING. IF IT GOES THERE, THEN I WILL CUT IT OFF, BUT THE BROWN FAMILY IS -- IS CAPABLE OF SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE BRING -- MS. CLARK: I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE COURT ON THAT POINT. THE COURT: WELL, I ASSUME THAT THIS IS JUST TESTING MR. KAELIN'S -- THE DEPTH OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT WAS GOING ON. MR. SHAPIRO: YES, EXACTLY. THE COURT: I ALSO ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON. MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT NICOLE DATING OTHER MEN AND NICOLE SHOWING ANGER AND THEN GOING -- THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANYTHING I ASKED THIS WITNESS ON DIRECT. I DID NOT INQUIRE INTO ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENTS WITH THIS WITNESS. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MS. CLARK: MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE SCOPE COMPLETELY IN GOING INTO ALL OF THIS STUFF, THE CHRISTMAS DINNER THING, THE OCTOBER 25TH 911 TAPE. THE COURT: BUT DON'T YOU -- DON'T YOU WANT HIM TO DO THAT? MR. DARDEN: WELL, NOW THAT HE -- MS. CLARK: I MEAN, HE IS GOING TO BE SORRY HE DID IT, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THIS IS GOING TO GIVE ME A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES, BUT IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE AND I'M ASKING THE COURT -- THE COURT: ARE YOU MAKING A SERIOUS OBJECTION OR JUST AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD? MS. CLARK: WAIT. THE COURT: BECAUSE I -- I NOTED THAT WHEN THIS STARTED TO COME IN, ESPECIALLY THE JENNER RESIDENCE CHRISTMAS PARTY BUSINESS, I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IT. I MEAN, ARE YOU MAKING A SERIOUS OBJECTION ABOUT THAT? MS. CLARK: I'M MAKING AN OBJECTION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, A SERIOUS OBJECTION, THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED, AND IT HAS BEEN ENORMOUSLY, AND IF WE ARE GOING TO START GETTING INTO CHARACTER EVIDENCE ANY MORE, AND I THINK THAT WE ALREADY HAVE WITH THE REMARKS ABOUT THE GENEROSITY TO THE -- NICOLE'S FAMILY, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS JURY AND THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. THE COURT: WELL, MR. SHAPIRO HAS INDICATED HE IS ABOUT TO MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE. MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT LET'S TAKE OUR RECESS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NOTES. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE OTHER ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP. THE COURT: YEAH. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS I DIDN'T WANT TO APPROACH THE BENCH ON AN ISSUE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND A RELATIONSHIP SHE HAD WITH A HOUSEKEEPER NAMED MICHELLE. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MR. SHAPIRO: AND THIS GOES TO THE VERY ISSUE AS TO WHAT THE MOTIVATING FACTORS WERE AS TO WHY NICOLE DID NOT WANT KATO TO STAY AT O.J.'S RESIDENCE AND THAT IS BECAUSE NICOLE HIT THE HOUSEKEEPER AND KATO TOOK THE HOUSEKEEPER'S SIDE AND THEREFORE NICOLE TURNED ON KATO. AND MISS CLARK HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY TO PAINT A PICTURE THAT O.J. WAS JEALOUS AND OBSESSIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE KATO LIVING UNDER THE SAME ROOF, BUT THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT GOES INTO THE RELATIONSHIP AS TO WHY HE WAS LIVING AT ROCKINGHAM AND THE RELATIONSHIP AND WHY IT CHANGED, AND SHE BROUGHT UP THE CHANGE IN THE RELATIONSHIP AND THAT NICOLE ALWAYS WANTED HIM TO LEAVE AND THAT WAS THE REASON. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE. MR. DARDEN: CAN I JUST INDICATE THIS, THAT WE WILL PROBABLY BE CALLING BRUCE JENNER, SO CONSIDER HIM ON THE WITNESS LIST. THE COURT: OH, TERRIFIC. MS. CLARK: AS A RESULT OF THIS CROSS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME THE NOTES WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL GIVE THEM TO YOU RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: WE WILL WAIT THE COURT'S DETERMINATION. THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE? MR. DARDEN: WE'VE GOT ABOUT EIGHT MORE MINUTES. (RECESS.) **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. SHAPIRO: JUST A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MISS CLARK WANTED TO IMPLY TO THE JURY WAS THAT O.J. WANTED TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND THAT THIS WAS SOMEHOW UNUSUAL AND THAT HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO AND THAT HE WAS VERY, VERY MAD ABOUT IT. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TIME THAT HE DOES SPEND WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND THAT THOSE ARE CHERISHED TIMES AND THAT IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY NATURAL THAT IF HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER AT A RECITAL, THAT HE MIGHT BE DISAPPOINTED. THE COURT: BUT TALKING ABOUT THAT THROUGH KATO KAELIN AND TALKING ABOUT KATO'S DAUGHTER, I MEAN, THAT IS -- MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WAS JUST TO SEE IF HE COULD ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR A KNOWLEDGE OF HOW A FATHER RELATES TO A YOUNG DAUGHTER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: MR. SHAPIRO KNOWS THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. IT IS IMPROPER AND IT IS INADMISSIBLE. WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT MR. KAELIN DOWN HE WOULD NOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH US. HE HAD AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHO WANTED TO TALK TO HIM AND GET -- AND GET HIM FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS FIRST. HE WAS CALLED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNTIL HE COULD SPEAK TO HIS LAWYER AND HIS LAWYER ADVISED HIM TO READ THAT STATEMENT THAT THEY READ "PREPARED ON THE ADVISE OF MY ATTORNEY." AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HIS LAWYER HE CAME BACK AND TESTIFIED, BUT MR. SHAPIRO IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO ADMIT BEFORE THE JURY THE FACT THAT HE WOULD NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNTIL HE MET WITH HIS ATTORNEY. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS AN IMPROPER VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IT IS ALSO INADMISSIBLE TO -- IT IS INADMISSIBLE. ANY KIND OF INVOCATION IS INADMISSIBLE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION WHATSOEVER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS WHERE HE IS GOING. THE COURT: SO YOU WILL DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS AROUND THAT? MR. SHAPIRO: NO. MY QUESTION IS DID YOU TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY HONESTLY? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT I HEARD. MS. CLARK: AND THE WITNESS WAS ABOUT TO ANSWER I WOULD NOT -- I DID NOT, I WAS READING A STATEMENT. MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T CONTROL HIS ANSWER. MS. CLARK: YES, YOU CAN. THE COURT: WELL, ASK HIM TO VERY CAREFULLY -- I WILL LEAD HIM INTO IT. THE COURT: THESE ARE MINE. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL LEAD HIM INTO IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. WE WOULD ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF. AND IF THERE IS NO OFFER OF PROOF, IN LIGHT OF THE PRIOR CONDUCT THIS MORNING, WE WOULD ASK FOR SUBSTANTIAL SANCTIONS. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: WHAT? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. THE COURT: OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THIS STATEMENT THAT HE CALLED HER A BITCH. MS. CLARK: I'LL PLAY THE TAPE. COUNSEL'S HEARD THE TAPE. LET'S DO IT AGAIN. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, ANY RESPONSE? MR. SHAPIRO: CAN I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. MR. SHAPIRO: IS MISS CLARK REFERRING TO THE TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW THAT I HAD? THE COURT: NO. I THINK SHE'S REFERRING TO THE TAPE-RECORDED 911 CALL. AM I CORRECT, MISS CLARK? MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING IS THAT THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WERE INTENTIONALLY VAGUE. HE WAS NEVER ASKED THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. HE WAS ASKED VERY GENERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING A FIGHT OR AN ARGUMENT. AND I THINK IF THIS IS FOR IMPEACHING HER OWN WITNESS, SHE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO DO THAT. MS. CLARK: THE QUESTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS OPEN ENDED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THIS. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PRIOR FIGHTS WERE I BELIEVE THERE WERE. SO I ASKED OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS TO ELICIT INFORMATION. IT SHOWS THIS WITNESS IS RELUCTANT AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIS BIAS AND MOTIVE AND HIS DEMEANOR AND CREDIBILITY WITH REGARD TO THESE INCIDENTS. THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MISS CLARK. WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THE 911 TAPE. WE HEARD THE YELLING AND COMMOTION GOING ON THERE. HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED, "YEAH, I CAME HOME, AND HE'S YELLING AND SCREAMING. I RECALL THE BRONCO OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET," OBVIOUSLY A PRETTY CRAZY SITUATION. WE'VE PRETTY MUCH ESTABLISHED THAT, HAVEN'T WE? MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. YEAH. I MEAN I'M -- I DIDN'T ASK THE COURT TO PLAY THE TAPE. COUNSEL ASKED FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AND I'M JUST -- WHAT I'M DEMONSTRATING IS THIS WITNESS' DEMEANOR, HIS CREDIBILITY AND HIS BIAS AND HIS FAILURE TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH INFORMATION THAT HE HAD OF A VERY BIG EVENT IN TERMS OF ARGUMENT. THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE SORT OF NITPICKING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE JURY, AND THEY'RE LOOKING QUIZZICAL BECAUSE THEY'VE HEARD ALL THIS ALREADY. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. I AGREE THE OFFER OF PROOF BASED UPON THE TAPE IS ADEQUATE. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN. MS. CLARK: ON THE THEORY OF ENOUGH ALREADY? THE COURT: YEAH. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: ENOUGH ALREADY. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT WAS THAT? MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THAT? HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF MICHELLE AND NICOLE. THE COURT: BUT HE WASN'T THERE IN 1989. MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T THERE, BUT HE KNOWS ABOUT IT, AND IT GOES TO EXPLAIN HIS STATE OF MIND WITH RESPECT TO WHAT MR. SHAPIRO WAS GETTING INTO WITH MICHELLE. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MR. SHAPIRO WAS PROHIBITED AT SIDEBAR FROM ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT MICHELLE. MS. CLARK: SOME QUESTIONS DID COME IN THOUGH ABOUT IT. MR. SHAPIRO: NONE CAME IN. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR STOPPED HIM MID-STREAM I THOUGHT. THE COURT: I STOPPED IT BECAUSE I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ALL OF THAT AND I SUSTAINED YOUR OBJECTION TO GETTING INTO ALL OF THAT. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT HE DID GET SOME WAYS INTO IT, YOUR HONOR. I DID. THE COURT: THAT'S WHEN I -- MS. CLARK: I KNOW WE STOPPED IT AT SOME POINT. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I PULLED HIM OVER HERE AND STOPPED IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO NICOLE VERSUS MICHELLE. MR. SHAPIRO: AND NOW IT'S IN. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT HE DID. THE COURT: NO. MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK HE ANSWERED. MR. SHAPIRO: HE ANSWERED. MS. CLARK: NO, HE DIDN'T, NOT THIS LAST QUESTION. MR. SHAPIRO: YOU REMEMBER, HE TESTIFIED THAT MICHELLE WAS SLAPPED BY NICOLE. MR. COCHRAN: AND HE NEVER TESTIFIED TO THAT. WE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER AND MADE NOTES OF THAT EXACTLY. MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S CLEARLY IN THE RECORD. MR. COCHRAN: AND THEN THE PART ABOUT '89, HE WASN'T THERE. MS. CLARK: AND I THOUGHT HE GOT THAT OUT YESTERDAY. MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE A SERIOUS ADMONITION TO THE JURY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THAT DOOR IS OPEN. AS FAR AS MICHELLE IS CONCERNED, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. WHAT'S THIS '89 BUSINESS? HE WASN'T THERE. HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MICHELLE AND OPENING DOORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS JUST HEARSAY FROM SOMEBODY. MS. CLARK: WELL, IT WOULD BE HEARSAY, BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO HIS STATE OF MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF MICHELLE AND NICOLE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD GOTTEN INTO. I THOUGHT WE HAD GOTTEN INTO THAT, GONE DOWN THAT ROAD A WAYS BEFORE IT STOPPED. THE COURT: NO. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE MR. COCHRAN NOT TESTIFY? HE'S SHAKING HIS FISTS, MAKING FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. MR. COCHRAN: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE STOP BEING UNREASONABLE. I'M STANDING HERE NOT SAYING ANYTHING. MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT BEING UNREASONABLE. THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE JUST CREATED ANOTHER QUAGMIRE FOR OURSELVES HERE. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THE QUAGMIRE WAS ALREADY THERE. I THOUGHT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY CAME OUT ABOUT MICHELLE. THE COURT: NO. THAT'S WHY I STOPPED IT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, ARE YOU SURE NOTHING CAME IN? THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO BREAK RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE RECORD AND SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE. BUT I'M GOING TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY ABOUT 1989 AND MICHELLE BECAUSE THIS WITNESS WAS NOT EVEN IN CONTACT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE EVEN STRONGER LANGUAGE THAN THAT. SOMETIMES ALL OF US ASK A QUESTION, BUT THIS ONE IS A QUESTION THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THIS CASE AND IS ONE THAT CLEARLY THERE WAS NO GOOD FAITH IN ASKING AND THE JURY SHOULD BE SO ADMONISHED. THEY'RE GONE FOR THE WEEKEND NOW, FOR A THREE-DAY WEEKEND ENDING ON THIS, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR TO MR. SIMPSON, ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR TO HIS LAWYERS AND IT LEAVES A TREMENDOUS MISIMPRESSION ON THE PART OF THE JURY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. MR. SHAPIRO HAS GONE INTO WITH THIS WITNESS A NUMBER OF THINGS. I REALLY THINK MR. SHAPIRO ASKING FOR -- I THINK HE'S MAKING A GREAT DEAL MORE OF IT THAN IT DESERVES, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THIS DOOR WAS OPENED BY MR. SHAPIRO. I DO NOT THINK IT WAS COMPLETELY FORECLOSED, AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT TO SEE WHAT CAME OUT IN THIS REGARD BECAUSE THIS WITNESS KNOWS CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MICHELLE AND NICOLE AND BETWEEN NICOLE AND THE DEFENDANT WHICH IS RELEVANT TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND HIS BIAS AND HIS CREDIBILITY. AND SO A LOT WAS DONE ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE COURT: WELL, I EXPRESSED TO YOU WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE FIRST TIME MY RELUCTANCE TO GET INTO THIS BECAUSE I FELT GETTING INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NICOLE AND MICHELLE IS TANGENTIAL TO THAT CASE IF NOT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. THAT'S WHY I STOPPED IT WHEN YOU MADE THE OBJECTION. AND I THINK I DRAGGED YOU GUYS OVER HERE BEFORE YOU DID. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO IT. BUT, MR. SHAPIRO, I'LL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION YOUR REQUEST FOR A STRONGER ADMONITION OTHER THAN DISREGARD. AS TO THE SANCTIONS, AS YOU KNOW, I NORMALLY LIKE TO SLEEP ON SANCTION REQUESTS. BUT THAT'S WHY WE STOPPED AND CAME OVER HERE, BECAUSE I WAS SURPRISED THAT CAME OUT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MY CONCERN -- THE COURT: I KNOW WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS. AND I'M GOING TO TELL THEM THAT -- I AM GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THE REASON I HAD YOU OVER AT SIDEBAR WAS, MR. KAELIN OBVIOUSLY HAD NO CONTACT WITH THESE PEOPLE IN 1989 AND WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN 1989. MR. SHAPIRO: BUT THE QUESTION WAS -- OPENED THE DOOR THAT MICHELLE -- OPENED THE DOOR FOR O.J. TO BEAT NICOLE. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. IT'S BAD FAITH. IT'S -- MS. CLARK: WELL, THERE IS EVIDENCE, PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BAD FAITH. WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE '89 TESTIMONY WAS, MICHELLE CAME OVER TO THE POLICE CAR AND TRIED TO GET NICOLE TO COME BACK IN THE HOUSE, SAYING, "YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE POLICE. DON'T DO THIS." MS. CLARK: NO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. I WOULD LIKE TO LET MR. DARDEN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S HIS PART. BUT WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT. THAT WAS NOT DONE -- THE COURT: GETTING OUT OF THE CAR TO GET BEATEN? MS. CLARK: NO. WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT MICHELLE LET O.J. IN THE DOOR, IN THE HOUSE WHEN NICOLE WAS TRYING TO HIDE FROM HIM, THAT SHE OPENED THE DOOR TO LET HIM IN WHEN HE BEAT HER. THE COURT: IN '89? MS. CLARK: IN 1989. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID. SHE DIDN'T SAY SHE OPENED THE DOOR SO HE COULD COME IN AND BEAT HER. MR. COCHRAN: AND WITH THIS WITNESS -- MR. SHAPIRO: WITH THIS WITNESS -- AND I MEAN, IT'S CONDUCT TWICE REMOVED. THE COURT: YEAH. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ANY OF THIS. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT. **** Sidebars from March 27, 1995: (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MS. CLARK: 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. THE COURT: 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. MS. CLARK: WHY NOT? THE COURT: BECAUSE HE HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. MS. CLARK: WHAT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DOES HE HAVE TO HAVE OF THIS? THIS IS A CHARACTER WITNESS, YOUR HONOR. "IS HE A CARING FATHER?" "YES." THE COURT: WELL, HE'S DEALT WITH THE KIDS, PERSONALLY SEEN THEM, EYE-BALLED, SEEN THEM TOGETHER. MS. CLARK: WHAT KIND OF FOUNDATION DO WE HAVE FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER, OF THE CHILDREN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER? THE COURT: HE'S BEEN WITH THEM. ALL THREE OF THEM HAVE BEEN TOGETHER; THE DEFENDANT, THE CHILDREN AND KATO. MS. CLARK: 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. THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY I POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, MISS CLARK, THAT YOU DID NOT PHRASE THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY. MS. CLARK: 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. THE COURT: BUT THIS WITNESS HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. MS. CLARK: BUT, YOUR HONOR, CAN I SHOW THE COURT -- THE COURT: OBJECTION SUSTAINED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I BE HEARD FIRST? THE COURT: NO. MISS CLARK IS MAKING THE REQUEST. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO TODAY'S EVENTS AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATIONS, THIS WITNESS HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE RELUCTANT. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY AND HIS DEMEANOR, WHICH DATES BACK TO AS EARLY AS JUNE THE 13TH AND FORWARD, CONTRASTING STATEMENTS HE GAVE TO MR. SHAPIRO ON JUNE THE 14TH, THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WAS VERY FORTHCOMING ABOUT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION, WHICH I ALREADY POINTED OUT FOR THE JURY, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND JURY SOME SIX DAYS LATER IN WHICH IN RESPONSE TO EQUALLY OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS POSED BY MYSELF AND MR. SHAPIRO, HE INDICATED THERE WAS ONE ARGUMENT HE BARELY REMEMBERED, AND THAT WAS THE 911 TAPE THAT WE'VE HEARD IN THIS COURTROOM, WHICH CAN HARDLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS JUST AN ARGUMENT. THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME I AGREE WITH YOU HE'S A HOSTILE WITNESS TO THE PROSECUTION. WHAT BENEFIT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THAT? MS. CLARK: I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM AS OPPOSED TO DIRECT EXAMINE HIM. THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK HIM LEADING QUESTIONS? MS. CLARK: CORRECT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, ANY COMMENT ON THAT? MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE COURT: AND BEFORE WE DO THAT, MISS CLARK, BEFORE YOU ANNOUNCE THAT YOU ARE TAKING SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS, YOU NEED TO DO THAT AT SIDEBAR. MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE. THE COURT: THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN FRONT OF THE JURY. MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. MR. SHAPIRO: ON THAT ISSUE, WE WOULD AGAIN ASK FOR SANCTIONS AND ALSO FOR -- SANCTIONS FOR MISS CLARK'S CONDUCT WHEN I MENTION THESE THINGS WITH HER LAUGHING, ROLLING HER HEAD, ROLLING HER EYES IN TOTAL DISRESPECT OF YOUR HONOR AND THIS COURT. MS. CLARK: I'M NOT DISRESPECTFUL OF THIS COURT IN THE VERY LEAST. I HIGHLY RESPECT THIS COURT. MR. SHAPIRO'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS LUDICROUS GIVEN THE CONDUCT OF DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, IMPROPER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFTER THE COURT SUSTAINED THE PEOPLE'S OBJECTIONS. AND TO HEAR MR. SHAPIRO'S LACK OF ELOQUENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF SANCTIONS IS PREPOSTEROUS. THE COURT: BUT DO YOU AGREE REQUEST TO TAKE SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE ANNOUNCED TO THE JURY, BUT SHOULD BE ASKED AT SIDEBAR? MS. CLARK: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND I DO APOLOGIZE. IN ALL SINCERITY, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER, THE HOSTILITY OF THIS WITNESS TO THE PROSECUTION IS I THINK NO SECRET TO ANYONE IN THIS COURTROOM. BUT I DO APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. AND IN THE FUTURE, I WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT AT SIDEBAR. I DIDN'T KNOW. YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I'VE NEVER HAD TO DO THIS BEFORE. THE COURT: NO. REQUEST -- THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO TAKE SOMEBODY AS A HOSTILE WITNESS NEEDS TO BE DONE OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. IN THE FUTURE -- I HOPE THERE WILL NOT BE A FUTURE OCCURRENCE, BUT IF THERE IS, I WILL. THE COURT: I'M SURE THERE WILL BE. SO I DO NEED TO TELL THE JURY IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASK FOR THAT IN FRONT OF THEM. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: BECAUSE TO SUDDENLY ANNOUNCE THIS GUY IS A HOSTILE WITNESS, THAT'S FOR ME TO DECIDE, NOT FOR THEM TO DECIDE, NOT FOR YOU TO ANNOUNCE. MS. CLARK: IT IS. BUT THE COURT WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT RULING IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. THE COURT: NO. I MAKE THE RULING HERE, THAT I AM GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO TAKE HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS, WHICH MERELY MEANS YOU GET WIDER LEEWAY IN ASKING HIM LEADING QUESTIONS. BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL THE BENEFIT YOU GET FROM THAT. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ANNOUNCE THAT TO THE JURY IS THE POINT I'M MAKING. MS. CLARK: WELL, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS -- I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. I WISH I HAD KNOWN THAT. I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. I DIDN'T KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE. THE COURT: I CERTAINLY GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY EARLIER TO DEEM HIM TO BE A HOSTILE WITNESS. MS. CLARK: YES. AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I REALLY WANTED TO RESIST IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET THIS TO THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. I WAS TOSSING IT AROUND WITH MR. DARDEN WHETHER I SHOULD OR NOT AND FOR A LONG TIME, AND I'M PUSHED TO IT. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD CONCEDE THAT MR. KAELIN PRESENTS QUITE AN ENIGMA AS A WITNESS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT HE IS HOSTILE TO EITHER SIDE OF THIS CASE. I THINK QUITE THE CONTRARY. I THINK HE IS TRYING TO ABSOLUTELY DO HIS BEST TO RELATE WHAT HE KNOWS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT IS NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT THAT HE KNOWS, AND MOST OF THIS IS OVER SEMANTICS. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD ANGRY? MILDLY ANGRY? SERIOUSLY ANGRY?" DEMEANOR IS VERY, VERY HARD TO RELATE TO, ESPECIALLY ON A QUESTION BY QUESTION BASIS AS IT WOULD BE IF ANYBODY WAS TRYING TO RELATE THE DEMEANOR OF THE THREE OF US AT COUNSEL -- AT THE SIDEBAR HERE. AND I THINK THAT THIS WITNESS, IF ASKED APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS, WILL GIVE RESPONSES THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE SO THE JURY CAN FIND THE TRUTH. BUT THE COURT HAS ALREADY GIVEN THIS -- GIVEN THE PROSECUTION GREAT LATITUDE IN LEADING QUESTIONS. THE COURT: I SUSPECT YOU GET TIRED OF MAKING OBJECTIONS IS WHAT HAPPENS. MR. SHAPIRO: NO. MR. COCHRAN CONTINUES TO COACH ME ON THOSE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO TAKE THE WITNESS AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME THERE'S SOME CONFLICT HERE IN HIS -- MR. COCHRAN: PROSECUTION WITNESS? THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO TAKE HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS. HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE DETERMINATION IS FOR ME TO MAKE OUT OF THEIR PRESENCE AND THEY ARE TO DISREGARD THE COMMENT BY COUNSEL. AND LET ME SEE. WHAT ELSE? HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU HAVE WITH THIS GUY? MS. CLARK: I MAY VERY WELL GO INTO NOON. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE BREAK, I WOULD HAVE -- WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH HIM TODAY IF WE DID NOT HAVE THAT BOMB SCARE STUFF. THE COURT: HOW MUCH MORE? YOU'VE ESTABLISHED, YOU KNOW, THAT HE DID AT ONE POINT IN TIME SAY THE DEFENDANT WAS ANGRY THAT AFTERNOON. WHAT MORE DO WE HAVE? MS. CLARK: ON THIS ISSUE? THE COURT: YES. MS. CLARK: I'M ALMOST DONE WITH THIS ISSUE. THE COURT: WHAT MORE DO YOU HAVE BESIDES THIS? MS. CLARK: EVENTS OF JUNE 12 AND THERE'S MORE, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S A LOT MORE. THE COURT: JUST GIVE ME A PREVIEW. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? MS. CLARK: I CAN'T REMEMBER -- I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH HIM THE EVENT THAT TRANSPIRED AFTER THE LIMO DRIVER GOT THERE. JUST A COUPLE AREAS, YOUR HONOR. I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S -- MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT ALONG. MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD SAY WE HAVE VERY, VERY LITTLE RECROSS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO FINISH TODAY. THE COURT: LET'S SEE HOW FAR WE GET. LET ME ASK THE BAILIFF WHAT ABSOLUTE TIME THAT WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE FOR THE JUROR. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. WHERE DID THIS ONE COME FROM? MS. CLARK: CELL PHONE RECORDS AND A WITNESS. THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS? MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS -- THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS? 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. THE COURT: MR. DARDEN -- EXCUSE ME -- WILL YOU JOIN US, PLEASE? MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS ABOUT THE RECITAL AND ARRANGEMENT AND THE TIME TO BE THERE, AND THIS IS CLEARLY BAD FAITH. MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL? THE COURT: SURE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: WHAT -- 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. 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. THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT? MS. CLARK: WE HAVE -- THE COURT: I ASSUME YOU HAVE THE THREE GOLFING BUDDIES THAT HE WAS PLAYING GOLF WITH AT THE TIME. MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T PLAYING GOLF AT THAT TIME. HE HAD COMPLETED HIS GOLF GAME. THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING TO TELL US THAT? MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS. THE COURT: YOU SAID YOU HAVE A WITNESS? MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A WITNESS WHO OBSERVED HIM ON THE CELL PHONE ANGRY, YELLING, AND WE HAVE -- THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS? MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: HE'S BEEN TURNED OVER IN DISCOVERY. COUNSEL HAS IT. THE COURT: WHO IS THE WITNESS? 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. THE COURT: SO THERE'S ONLY ONE CELL PHONE CALL ON HIS RECORDS THAT AFTERNOON? MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD MATCH THE TIME THAT HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB WHEN THIS WITNESS COULD HAVE SEEN HIM. THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY MATCH THE TIME, I MEAN ARE THERE OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS IN THE AFTERNOON? MS. CLARK: OTHER CELL PHONE CALLS, BUT NOT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME WHEN HE WAS AT THE COUNTRY CLUB. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THE COURT: UH-HUH. 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. 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. 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. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES REGARDING ANOTHER AREA THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT GET INTO, AND I AM NOT PREPARED TO PROCEED ON THAT AREA UNTIL I CONFER WITH THEM. THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO CONFER? MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND COMPLETE THE EXAMINATION TOMORROW, KNOWING THAT THE COURT HAD SCHEDULED THIS TO END AT NOON. WE'VE GONE A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THAT. THE COURT: I WAS HOPING WE WOULD FINISH THIS MORNING WITH MR. KAELIN. MR. SHAPIRO: THIS MAY BE THE END. I MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING MORE. THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO CONFER WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES? MR. SHAPIRO: WE ARE GOING TO NEED SOME TIME. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO QUICKLY AND DECIDE. THE COURT: ANY COMMENT BY THE PEOPLE? MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT THE COURT HAS TO AT SOME POINT CUT THIS OFF. NOW, THE WITNESS CAN BE RECALLED BY THE DEFENSE. THE WITNESS ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE. WE CAN COMPLETE EXAMINATION FOR NOW, MOVE ON WITH THIS CASE AND COUNSEL CAN RECALL THE WITNESS IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF. HE'S THEIR WITNESS REALLY ANYWAY. MR. COCHRAN: WE DIDN'T CALL THIS WITNESS. MS. CLARK: NO, I KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, MR. COCHRAN. THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE ALREADY GONE 15 MINUTES PAST WHEN I SAID WE WERE GOING TO STOP TODAY. WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE ON THIS OTHER AREA OR DO YOU KNOW AT THIS POINT? MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN NOT GIVE A GOOD FAITH REPRESENTATION AS TO THE TIME. I THINK THE DIRECT WOULD BE VERY BRIEF. I THINK THE CROSS WOULD BE QUITE LENGTHY. MS. CLARK: I KNOW MR. SHAPIRO HAS NEVER PROBABLY GIVEN A GOOD FAITH REPRESENTATION. THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE REALLY DON'T NEED THOSE KIND OF SNIDE REMARKS, PLEASE. MR. SHAPIRO: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, I AM PERSONALLY -- MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE AREA COUNSEL INTENDS TO GO INTO. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED BY THIS CONDUCT OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS. YOUR HONOR PUT DOWN CERTAIN RULES, PUT THEM IN WRITING, HAS GIVEN WARNING AFTER WARNING, AND WE WOULD ASK YOUR HONOR TO START ENFORCING THOSE RULES WITH APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS. MS. CLARK: GOOD. PERHAPS -- MR. SHAPIRO: I FIND IT PERSONALLY EMBARRASSING AND HUMILIATING. COUNSEL KNOWS THAT THESE SIDEBARS ARE REPORTED, AND I DON'T WANT TO DIGNIFY HER RESPONSES AT ALL, BUT I THINK THE COURT SHOULD MAKE APPROPRIATE COMMENTS. MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD WELCOME THE COURT'S IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON BOTH SIDES AS APPROPRIATE. MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN OFFENSIVE IN HIS CONDUCT TOWARDS ME, RUDE, MAKING UNCALLED FOR, DEROGATORY REMARKS SINCE JUNE THE 13TH, AND THIS COURT IS ONLY AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS COURT SINCE COMING TO SUPERIOR COURT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF WATER UNDER THIS BRIDGE. I WOULD JUST LET THE COURT KNOW COUNSEL HAS GIVEN A GREAT DEAL, GREATER THAN HE'S RECEIVED IN THIS RESPECT. THE COURT: WELL, THE FACT THAT THAT MAY BE HISTORY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE. MS. CLARK: THAT'S TRUE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE OUR BREAK THEN AT THIS POINT SINCE WE'RE ALREADY OVER IN ANY EVENT AND THE SHERIFF NEEDS TO GET THIS JUROR ON HER WAY TO THE FUNERAL THAT SHE NEEDS TO ATTEND. SO WE'LL TAKE THE BREAK AT THIS TIME. TOMORROW MORNING SHARP WITH THE JURY. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO CONCLUDE THE OTHER JUROR MATTERS, ANY OTHER DISCOVERY MATTERS. SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO RECONVENE AT 1:30 OR 1:45 WITH COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THAT, YOUR HONOR? MS. CLARK: YOU MEAN TODAY? THE COURT: TODAY. MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK THAT THE -- THAT COUNSEL MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE AREA THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING INTO? I MEAN THIS MAY BE AN AREA WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO AND THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION, IN WHICH CASE WE CAN CONCLUDE WITH THE WITNESS NOW. MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO COUNSEL. THE COURT: HE'S ASKING FOR TIME TO CONFER. I WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME CONSIDERATION, AS I HAVE. MS. CLARK: YOU HAVE. MR. COCHRAN: I WASN'T CLEAR. ARE WE COMING BACK 1:45 TODAY? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT MATTER ARE WE GOING TO -- --