Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 11
kill her, but also serves to rebut Simpson's claims to the contrary."
In its pretrial ruling denying Simpson's motion in limine, the court
indicated that although it would not make final determinations until
specific evidence was offered at trial, it was reasonable to assume
that the nature of the relationship between Simpson and Nicole would be
a relevant issue.
Consistent with the pretrial memo, Goldman's counsel told the jury
in his opening statement that the evidence would show Simpson and
Nicole were engaged in a deeply emotional, tense, angry conflict in the
weeks leading up to the killings, and that Simpson felt rejection and
rage when Nicole attempted to end their relationship and excluded
Simpson from the family circle and celebration at the recital and postrecital
dinner. Counsel for Nicole's estate stated the evidence would
show that in the weeks leading up to the killings Simpson's ego was
bruised to its core by Nicole's finally ending the relationship, and on
the night of the killings by his exclusion from the family circle, and
he committed the killings in a rage. Counsel for Simpson told the jury
the evidence would show the relationship between Simpson and Nicole was
not acrimonious, Simpson was not out of control when they mutually
decided to terminate the relationship and move on with their lives, and
Simpson was not in a foul mood at the recital.
During trial, in his memorandum to the court about admissibility of
the telephone call to the battered women's shelter, Simpson again
claimed it should be excluded on the ground Nicole's state of mind was
irrelevant. Goldman's memorandum replied the statements in the
telephone call "explain Nicole's conduct in ending the relationship
with defendant and in rejecting him again on June 12, the night of the
murders," or were "admissible as circumstantial evidence of Nicole's
state of mind. Each statement provides highly probative evidence of
Nicole's fear, and helps explain her conduct in rejecting defendant and
not wanting anything to do with him." In arguing the motion Goldman's
counsel contended, "Our theory of the case, Your Honor, as you probably
know, is that the primary motivation for the crime was retaliation from
Ms. Brown's rejection of Mr. Simpson, the termination of the
relationship and the rejection, specifically on June 12, as well, after
the recital. And her state of mind about the relationship, the state of
the relationship, her extreme fear of the defendant, as demonstrated by
the phone call [to] Ms. Ney. It is probative of the fact that she would
[*594] not want to be with him and would want to stay as far away from
him as possible. [It very much] goes to her rejection of him." He
argued the evidence impeached Simpson's position that Simpson had put
the relationship behind him. He contended the evidence "really goes to
the heart of the motive of the case, as to what's going on in the
relationship in these few days before the murders. As the court in Zack
said, antagonism, hostility, enmity in the relationship is highly
probative and always relevant." The court agreed with plaintiffs'
argument that the evidence was admissible for the limited purpose
offered. Earlier the court had similarly admitted the diary entries.
The court agreed with plaintiffs' contention the diary entries showed
Nicole's state of mind as relevant to the motive issue.
Later when Goldman's counsel sought to cross-examine Simpson about
the letter, Goldman's counsel asserted the letter came within the state
of mind exception to the hearsay rule; Simpson's counsel again argued
Nicole's state of mind was not in issue. The court concluded, "I'm