Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 33
opinion as to the validation studies "is relevant to the weight of the
results
in this case," and that Simpson's admissions meant only "those were the
results
PAGE 27
86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *611; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **73;
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***518; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759
they were going to testify about, not that they were the correct
results." He
added that Gerdes also would testify that in his opinion there was
contamination
in the results as to two items of evidence in this case.
The trial court ruled Gerdes could testify about contamination in
test
results relating to this case, but not the validation [***519]
studies, basing
its ruling [**74] "upon the reasons stated by the plaintiff."
Whereas at the time of the pretrial in limine motion it appeared the
proposed
testimony would be relevant to the weight of plaintiffs' scientific
evidence,
subsequent events showed the testimony would have no probative value in
light of
the way the case was actually being tried. ( Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.
(1978) 79
Cal. App. 3d 325, 337-338, 145 Cal. Rptr. 47.) Alternatively, the court
could
reasonably conclude the probative value was minimal and in its
discretion
exclude the evidence under Evidence Code section 352. ( Id. at p. 338,
fn. 7;
see People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 660, 681-682, 248 Cal. Rptr.
69, 755
P.2d 253.)
[*612]
JUROR MISCONDUCT
After the jury had been deliberating for two and one-half days
during the
liability phase of the trial, the trial court received a letter stating
that the
daughter of juror number 7 had worked for many years as a legal
secretary in the
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and had a social
relationship with
Christopher Darden, one of the prosecutors in the prior criminal trial.
In the
initial jury questionnaire, [**75] juror number 7 had answered "No"
to the
question, "Have you or any close friends or relatives ever been
employed by, or