home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399
/
9300.zip
/
AOLDLs
/
March
/
March 21.txt
/
MARCH21.txt
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
2014-12-11
|
216KB
|
5,592 lines
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995
9:27 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT
WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS,
MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND
MR. DARDEN.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE DO HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY
MATTERS.
THE COURT: YES, WE DO.
ALL RIGHT. EITHER COUNSEL WISH TO BE HEARD?
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT ASKED
TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. COCHRAN: ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE YOU GET TO
THAT, YOUR HONOR.
WOULD THE COURT ASSIST US? IN THE TESTIMONY OF
SEVERAL WITNESSES HAS BEEN MENTION OF THE HOMICIDE MANUAL
UPDATED AND ALSO THE LAPD MANUAL.
IF THE COURT WILL RECALL, AT ONE TIME WE HAD AN
LAPD MANUAL HERE THAT WAS SENT BACK. WOULD THE COURT
ASSIST, I THINK PERHAPS BOTH SIDES, IN GETTING A MANUAL,
BOTH MANUALS HERE TODAY, IF POSSIBLE?
THE COURT: '94?
MR. COCHRAN: '94 EDITIONS. THAT IS A YES?
THE COURT: DONE.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANKS, JUDGE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY
EXTENDING MY SINCERE APOLOGY, VERY SINCERE APOLOGY FOR
BEING LATE THIS MORNING. I GOT ON THE FREEWAY AND DIDN'T
MOVE FOR HALF AN HOUR, BUT YOU KNOW, I LEFT EARLY THINKING
THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME, BUT IT UNFORTUNATELY WASN'T AND
I DO DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR BEING LATE THIS
MORNING.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.
OKAY.
WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER THAT THE COURT
WANTED ME TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING, FIRST OF ALL, AS I
INDICATED EARLIER, THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT, FIRST
OF ALL, IN DIRECT, THAT THE WITNESS DID NOT TESTIFY TO ANY
MATTERS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR ANY MATTERS
THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO VALID IMPEACHMENT FROM THAT SEARCH
WARRANT.
MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
MAY I SUGGEST -- EXCUSE ME, MARCIA. MAY I
SUGGEST THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER BE EXCUSED FROM THIS
ARGUMENT?
THE COURT: YES.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU STEP OUT AND
WAIT OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.
(DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXITS THE
COURTROOM.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THE ISSUE IS WHAT RELEVANCE DO THESE
STATEMENTS HAVE. UNDER 352 THEY ARE -- CLEARLY IT IS GOING
TO BE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME TO ADMIT THEM, NO. 1
THING, AS A BROAD GENERAL ISSUE.
IF THE DEFENDANT --
THE COURT: WHY IS THAT?
MS. CLARK: BECAUSE IF THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO
GO INTO THIS WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT ON THE TWO MATTERS
THAT WERE INDICATED YESTERDAY IN CHAMBERS, THEN THE PEOPLE
SHOULD BE ENTITLED PROPERLY TO GO INTO ALL OF THE MATTERS
IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WERE CORRECT.
WHAT WE WILL WIND UP DOING IS ESSENTIALLY
LITIGATING VALIDITY OF THE WARRANT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.
THE WARRANT AND ITS AVERMENTS ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE
JURY, AS IS STATED IN 1538.5(M).
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LITIGATING THE VALIDITY OF
A SEARCH WARRANT IS TO DETERMINE IF THE WARRANT STATES
PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS ARE NOT THE
PROVINCE OF THE JURY; THEY ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE JUDGE,
AND THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE ITS RULING WITH RESPECT TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT DEEMS IT
APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE STATEMENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT TO BE
USED AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THERE IS NO
INCONSISTENCY THAT IT CAN BE ATTACHED TO.
THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS
WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE THE DETERMINATION OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENCY ON.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO STATEMENTS. IF THERE HAS
BEEN NO FOUNDATION AT THIS TIME TO THIS POINT THAT WOULD
PERMIT FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT STATEMENTS
AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THEN IN THAT CASE THE
ANALYSIS HAS TO BE A PEOPLE VERSUS WHEELER, OTHER BAD ACT
ANALYSIS AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE STATEMENTS AMOUNT TO ACTS
OF MORAL TURPITUDE.
WE SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE COULD
POSSIBLY STATE THAT THEY AMOUNT TO THAT, AND IN FACT, BY
VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT ITSELF FOUND, NO. 1, THAT
EVEN THOUGH THESE WERE MISSTATEMENTS, THEY WERE NOT
MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVALIDATE THE
WARRANT AS A WHOLE.
THAT MAKES THEM -- THE COURT, IN ESSENCE, HAS
MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THESE ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS
BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO
CHICAGO AND THE HUMAN BLOOD ON THE BRONCO DOOR ARE NEITHER
OF THEM MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS.
THE COURT FOUND RECKLESS DISREGARD WITH RESPECT
TO THOSE STATEMENTS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, FOUND THAT THE
WARRANT WAS SUFFICIENT AND DID STATE PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT
NEVER DID THE COURT FIND THEM TO BE MATERIAL.
THAT IN ITSELF INDICATES THE COLLATERAL NATURE
OF THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS REALLY THE ESSENCE
AND THE FOCUS OF THE PEOPLE'S ARGUMENT HERE, IS THAT WE
HAVE COUNSEL ATTEMPTING TO OPEN HIS OWN DOOR, WHICH IS NOT
PERMITTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS-EXAMINING ON COLLATERAL
MATTERS.
PEOPLE VERSUS REYES, 62 CAL.APP.3D AT 53 -- 53
AT PAGE 62, PEOPLE VERSUS TAYLOR, 8 CAL.3D 174 AND PEOPLE
VERSUS LAVERGNE, L-A-V-E-R-G-N-E,
4 CAL.3D 735, ALL OF WHICH INDICATE THAT A PARTY MAY NOT
CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS ON COLLATERAL MATTERS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING SOMETHING TO BE CONTRADICTED,
WHICH IS WHAT COUNSEL IN THIS CASE PROPOSES TO DO.
WHAT IS STATED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT
IS RELEVANT TO WHAT THE WITNESS -- IS RELEVANT TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.
THE COURT: BUT ISN'T WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IS MR.
SHAPIRO WILL ASK DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID YOU MAKE ANY
MISTAKES IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND HE WILL
PROBABLY SAY, YES, I DID, I MADE TWO MISTAKES OR THREE
MISTAKES, X, Y AND Z, AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT, WON'T
IT?
MS. CLARK: WELL, NO. HE MAY ASK THAT.
I WOULD OBJECT AS IRRELEVANT. WHAT HE PUTS IN
-- WHAT IS PUT INTO A SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS NOT
RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR A JURY TO HEAR.
THE COURT: BUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER YESTERDAY
TESTIFIED THAT HE DID TAKE SOME NOTES AND HE INCLUDED IN
THAT DEFINITION THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT DAY, IF
YOU RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.
MS. CLARK: I RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY, BUT WHAT I
RECOLLECT IS THAT THAT WAS MR. SHAPIRO'S CHARACTERIZATION
AND NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S, AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT
PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT AS I RECALL, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER RESISTED THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE IT REALLY DID
NOT COMPORT WITH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF NOTES WERE.
AND THE -- MR. SHAPIRO KEPT INSISTING THAT IT
WAS PART OF HIS NOTES, BUT THAT WAS HIS CHARACTERIZATION,
NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S. I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER
ADOPTED BY HIM.
IT WAS PART OF THE THINGS THAT HE WROTE IN THIS
CASE, YOU KNOW, OF THE MANY WRITINGS THAT HE HAS DONE IN
THIS CASE WITH THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG, ET CETERA, BUT I DO
NOT RECALL THE WITNESS ADOPTING THAT DEFINITION. THAT WAS
ONE -- THOSE WERE WORDS PUT IN HIS MOUTH BY MR. SHAPIRO.
THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE
STRONGEST ARGUMENT THAT YOU RAISE, WHICH IS THE COLLATERAL
NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OR THE EVIDENCE, LET'S NOT EVEN
CALL IT IMPEACHMENT AT THIS POINT.
YOU INDICATE THAT THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU
TO GO THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT AND SHOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS
CORRECT.
MS. CLARK: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
RIGHT.
THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S
TESTIMONY.
DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE
PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE
FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND
THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS
WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER
OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD?
MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538
IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.
MS. CLARK: CORRECT.
THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN
BLOOD.
MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS
TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER
AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE --
BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN
THE AFFIDAVIT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS
HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE
IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A
LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE
OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED
BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE
CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I
DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE
ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
WITH RESPECT, HOWEVER, TO THE UNEXPECTED
FLIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES OF WHAT EXACT
INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED TO THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO CATHY
RANDA AND WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY WAS IMPARTED FROM THAT
OFFICER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IF ANY, AND WHERE DETECTIVE
-- WHAT WITNESSES TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO CAUSE
HIM TO LEAD HIM TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED
FLIGHT.
WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF
THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST
THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO
ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS
CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE
NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO
ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A SLOPPY JOB,
BUT TO ESTABLISH ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO
INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT.
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF HE IS WRITING A WARRANT
THAT CONTAINS SUCH ABUNDANT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHY JEOPARDIZE
IT BY DELIBERATELY MISSTATING SOMETHING TO MISLEAD A
MAGISTRATE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY GOING TO
BE ARGUING, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD.
OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE SEARCH
WARRANT WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE A
COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ARGUABLY INCORRECT, AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY
INCORRECT, AS WE LATER DETERMINED, THE ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT
DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AT THE TIME AND THAT IS ANOTHER
REASON THAT THIS IS COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT.
THIS GOES TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S STATE OF
MIND AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVED
BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD.
THAT IT LATER DEVELOPED THROUGH THE
INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT DOES NOT IMPEACH HIS
VERACITY AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENT. IT SIMPLY GOES
TO SHOW THAT LATER INVESTIGATION DISPROVED SOME ASPECT OF
WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT.
SO IT DOESN'T EVEN IMPEACH WITH RESPECT TO HIS
CREDIBILITY. IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION
REVEALED FACTS TO THE CONTRARY.
HOW IS THAT VALID IMPEACHMENT? HOW IS THAT
FAIR IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN WE GET INTO 352 ISSUES AND UNDUE
CONSUMPTION OF TIME IN WHICH HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN
EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HE HAD, WHERE HE GOT IT, WHAT LED
HIM TO THAT CONCLUSION AND CALL THE WITNESS BACK TO THE
WITNESS STAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY TOLD HIM AND WHY THEY
TOLD HIM THAT AND AT WHAT POINT AND THEN AT WHAT POINT IT
WAS LATER DETERMINED OTHERWISE.
WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN
BLOOD AND ANY OTHER MISSTATEMENTS -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY
OTHER ACTUALLY -- BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, SO WE
NOW ARE GOING TO CONVENE A MINI TRIAL AND WHAT IS TRUE AND
NOT TRUE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, BASICALLY REQUIRING THE JURY TO
REVIEW AN AREA THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE, AN AREA
THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED FULLY AND COMPLETELY AND
PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE THIS COURT.
AND THIS COURT MADE ITS DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT
COUNSEL IS NOW GOING TO DO IS REOPEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT
MEANT TO BE IN THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO,
BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE WILL THEN CONVENE THE
MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY
DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DERAIL THE TRIAL AND SPEND ANOTHER
WEEK ON TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED TODAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES
OF THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF
WITNESSES, AND WE ARE DEALING IN AN AREA HERE WHERE THE
COURT HAS ALREADY MADE AN EXTREME FINDING REGARDING THE
CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
THE COURT: SEVERE; NOT EXTREME.
MR. SHAPIRO: SEVERE; BETTER WORD.
AN EXTREME FINDING WOULD BE THAT IT WAS
WILLFULLY FALSE.
THE COURT: CORRECT.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT
THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE
KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT.
THESE ARE NOT COLLATERAL ISSUES. THESE
STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME DIRECTLY FROM BRIAN KATO
KAELIN AS TO WHAT HE TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND WILL COME
DIRECTLY FROM THE VERY SKIMPY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NOTES THAT
WERE THE ONLY NOTES TAKEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BESIDES
HIS RECORDATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT.
AND SO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS
IMPEACHABLE MATERIAL, HIGHLY RELEVANT, AND GOES TO THE
ESSENCE OF WHAT OUR CASE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS CREDIBILITY,
AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE STRESSED FROM DAY ONE.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS
MISS CLARK'S 352 ISSUE AND HER ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL
NECESSITATE A MINI TRIAL AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH
WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
INVOLVED.
MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THIS MAY BE THE QUICKEST PART
OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TRIAL.
IT WILL TAKE MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE TAKEN
OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY IN ARGUING
THIS ISSUE.
IT SIMPLY IS DID YOU PUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT
A CHEMIST TOLD YOU THERE WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE CAR? WE
KNOW A PRESUMPTIVE TEST MEANS ONLY THAT IT COULD BE BLOOD,
BUT IT COULD BE OTHER SUBSTANCES.
THE COURT: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU COULD DO THIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THESE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FIVE
OR SIX QUESTIONS?
MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T SAY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS,
BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER. AS YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER IS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER OF 26 YEARS AND HE DOES
NOT LIKE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER A QUESTION, SO IF HE DIRECTLY
ANSWERED YES OR NO --
THE COURT: SO MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN
DO THIS IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?
MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN DO IT IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT AS
YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS.
IF HE IS HONEST AND SAYS, YES OR NO, AND YES,
I MADE -- I MADE A MISTAKE, OR YES, I MADE A MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION, IT CAN BE VERY QUICK.
BUT IF HE IS NOT AS FORTHCOMING, THEN WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW HIM WHAT HE WROTE, HOW HE DID IT
BEFORE AND THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT HAND.
IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL NOT BE A LENGTHY PART OF
THE EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.
MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK -- MAKE ONE FURTHER POINT, YOUR
HONOR?
I'M GETTING THE DISTINCTIVE IMPRESSION FROM
COUNSEL THAT THERE IS SOME BELIEF ON THIS SIDE OF COUNSEL
TABLE THAT THEY CAN ADMIT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF THIS WITNESS
BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE.
I DON'T THINK THE COURT DISAGREES.
THE COURT: NO, I AGREE WITH THAT.
HOW IT IS PHRASED IS VERY CAREFUL. DID YOU SAY
-- AS I UNDERSTAND MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT, I THINK THE GIST
OF WHAT THE QUESTION WILL BE IS DID YOU INDICATE TO THE
MAGISTRATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT THERE HAD
BEEN A TEST FOR HUMAN BLOOD? YES OR NO.
DID YOU INDICATE TO THE MAGISTRATE IN THE
SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TRIP TO CHICAGO
WAS UNANTICIPATED? YES OR NO.
THINKING ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT, I COULD DO THIS
IN FOUR QUESTIONS.
MS. CLARK: IT COULD BE, BUT IT WON'T BE, AND ONCE HE
GETS INTO THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
RESPOND.
THE COURT: NO, BUT IT -- IF I ALLOW IT, IT WILL BE.
MS. CLARK: WELL, YEAH. WHAT I MEAN IS -- I DON'T
MEAN THAT.
THE COURT: OR I WILL DO THE QUESTIONING.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR
ASKING THE QUESTIONING ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AND TELLING
THE JURY WHAT YOUR FINDINGS WERE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU DO MY NEXT THREE
WITNESSES, TOO?
THE COURT: SURE.
MS. CLARK: WHAT I MEANT, YOUR HONOR --
MR. COCHRAN: WAS NOT --
THE COURT: IN THE TALMUD COURTS THERE ARE NO
LAWYERS; IT IS JUDGE ASKING QUESTIONS.
MS. CLARK: I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA.
THE COURT: I THINK SO, TOO.
MS. CLARK: BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY JURIES EITHER, DO
THEY?
THE COURT: NO.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT.
WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING TO THE COURT IS THAT I
DON'T THINK THAT IT WILL BE -- I DON'T THINK THAT IF
PERMITTED TO DO THIS QUESTIONING COUNSEL WILL CONCLUDE IT
QUITE THAT EXPEDITIOUSLY, AND ONE HAS TO ALSO CONSIDER THAT
THE PEOPLE WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED TO COUNTER WITH ALL OF
THE CORRECT STATEMENTS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE DONE
PROPERLY IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT.
THE COURT: UH-HUH.
MS. CLARK: IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF TIME WE ARE
GOING TO WIND UP SPENDING ON AN ISSUE THAT IS CLEARLY
COLLATERAL.
OKAY. I HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT AND
I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE IT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, BUT I DO WISH
THAT THE COURT WOULD INSTRUCT COUNSEL NOT TO QUESTION THE
WITNESS ON YOUR HONOR'S RULINGS WITH RESPECT TO THIS
WARRANT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MISS CLARK, I AM GOING
TO ALLOW LIMITED QUESTIONING OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AS TO
THOSE TWO STATEMENTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, AND AS I HAVE
INDICATED TO COUNSEL, IT IS A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO ALLOW IN THAT AREA.
LIKEWISE, THE REDIRECT AS TO REHABILITATION
WILL BE SOMEWHAT LIMITED AS WELL ALSO.
MR. SHAPIRO, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO
MENTION IN THIS ANY -- NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT CALL
FOR LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR THAT INDICATE THE COURT'S PREVIOUS
RULING OR FINDINGS WITH REGARDS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT
AFFIDAVIT, WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE JURY IS
CONCERNED.
IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: LET'S PROCEED.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE ALSO HAVE TWO OTHER
MATTERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT.
ONE IS A VIDEO --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: -- OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER GOING OVER
THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THAT, WITH
THE COURT'S PERMISSION.
THE COURT: HAVE YOU SHOWN THIS TO OPPOSING COUNSEL?
MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ONCE BEFORE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE SEEN IT SEVERAL TIMES.
MR. DARDEN: HAS IT BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE?
MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS THE ORIGINAL LASER DISK THAT WE
SHOWED THEM AT THE BEGINNING. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM IN
SHOWING THAT TO THEM AGAIN.
THE COURT: HOW LONG IS IT?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: A COUPLE OF SECONDS.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO PREVIEW THAT,
MR. DARDEN?
MR. DARDEN: YES. WE OBJECTED TO IT BEFORE AND WE
WILL PROBABLY OBJECT AGAIN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: THE OTHER THING WE WOULD LIKE TO
PRESENT TO THE COURT IS I HAVE THIS MORNING GIVEN MR.
DARDEN A MAP OF LOS ANGELES SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
PARKER CENTER, PIPER TECH WHERE THE CRIME LAB IS LOCATED,
AND THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, AND
WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO.
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MR. SHAPIRO
SHOWING THE MAP TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
I DO, HOWEVER, OBJECT TO THE DISTANCES
INDICATED ON THE MAP. HE INDICATES THAT PARKER CENTER TO
PIPER TECH IS ONE MILE AND PARKER CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM IS
18.7 MILES AND I WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT
BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION AS FAR AS THE
DISTANCES.
MR. SHAPIRO: WHATEVER YOU SAY IS CORRECT WE WILL
SUBSTITUTE.
MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT TESTIFYING; THE WITNESS IS
TESTIFYING.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE GOT THAT IN A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT
TELLS YOU THE SHORTEST DISTANCES TO THOSE POINTS.
MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE MAP SUBJECT
TO A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: CAN WE SEE THE TAPE, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE THE LASER.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(AT 9:50 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE,
WAS PLAYED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO
PRESENTATION.
ANY COMMENT? MR. DARDEN?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE SEE THAT ONE MORE TIME, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE. WHY NOT.
MS. CLARK: IT WENT BY SO FAST.
MR. DARDEN: WE SORT OF MISSED THE BEGINNING.
THE COURT: MR. HARRIS.
(AT 9:51 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE,
WAS REPLAYED.)
MR. DARDEN: WELL, IT APPEARS THAT THE BODIES ARE
ALREADY GONE IN THAT SCENARIO, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T SEE THE
RELEVANCY OF IT.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT
CRIMINALIST FUNG WAS STILL THERE AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS
STILL BEING COLLECTED AFTER THE BODIES WERE REMOVED AND IT
GOES TO IMPEACH THEIR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.
MR. DARDEN: WELL, UNLESS THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT
MR. FUNG IS COLLECTING EVIDENCE THEN OR AT THAT TIME --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO
MR. FUNG, WHO I DID SEE.
LET ME SEE IT ONE LAST TIME.
(AT 9:52 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE,
WAS REPLAYED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENT, MR. SHAPIRO?
MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR, BUT EVIDENCE COLLECTION
IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CASE AND THE TESTIMONY HAS
BEEN THAT EVIDENCE COLLECTION ENDED AFTER THE BODIES WERE
REMOVED AND ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS DONE BEFORE.
THE COURT: DO WE HAVE A --
MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT TRUE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S RIGHT, IT IS NOT TRUE.
EVIDENCE COLLECTION CONTINUED. THAT IS WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE, THAT ALL EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED.
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE COURT: BUT WE KNOW THAT NOT TO BE TRUE IN THIS
CASE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S CORRECT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE
SHOWING THAT, FOR IMPEACHMENT.
MS. CLARK: THAT DOESN'T IMPEACH ANYONE.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE GOT BOTH PEOPLE TALKING AT ONE
TIME.
MR. DARDEN: THAT HAS NOT BEEN OUR POSITION IN THIS
TRIAL, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS, THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE
COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE MOVED.
THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN THAT IT SHOULD BE
PHOTOGRAPHED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE MOVED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, IF MR. FUNG IS THE FOCUS OF THAT
PARTICULAR VIDEO, IT DOES APPEAR THAT HE IS FOLDING THOSE
LITTLE INDEX CARDS AND APPEARS TO HAVE A WRITING INSTRUMENT
IN HIS HAND AS WELL, SO I WILL ALLOW THE TAPE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS,
PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, HAVE WE MARKED THAT SEGMENT
OF THE LASER DISK AND CAN YOU DOWNLOAD THAT TO A VIDEOTAPE
FOR THE RECORD KEEPING PURPOSES?
MR. HARRIS: YES, WE CAN, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NEED TO MARK THAT FOR
THE RECORD.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE
WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
PHILIP VANNATTER,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING
ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS
FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE NOW BEEN
REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU AGAIN FOR THE LATE
START THIS MORNING. WE HAD A DELAY IN GETTING SOME OF THE
LAWYERS TO COURT TODAY BECAUSE OF THE RAIN-RELATED TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS, THINGS THAT YOU HAVE PROBABLY FORGOTTEN ABOUT
RECENTLY.
ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS STILL ON THE
WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO.
GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL
UNDER OATH.
AND MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.
Q YESTERDAY YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE
SOME TIME TO REVIEW YOUR REPORTS TO SEE IF YOU MADE ANY
INDICATION IN ANY OF YOUR RECORDS AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE
SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, SIR?
A YES. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING ME ANY BLOOD
SMEARS THAT MORNING.
Q AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT YOU WERE SHOWN
ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO. I COULDN'T FIND ANY, NO.
Q AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE
WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO
YOU, WOULD IT NOT?
A HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL
HIM DOING THAT.
Q WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, IS IT
NOT, WHAT BLOOD YOU SAW ON THE BRONCO AT ROCKINGHAM?
A PARDON, SIR? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
Q IS THE OBSERVATION OF BLOOD ON THE BRONCO
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A HOMICIDE
INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND IF YOU WERE SHOWN BLOOD SMEARS ON THE
BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
REMEMBER?
A I -- I -- I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO
ME. HE COULD HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IT.
Q MY QUESTION IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD
REMEMBER, IF THOSE WERE SHOWN TO YOU?
A I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT
SINCE I DON'T RECALL THEM BEING SHOWN TO ME.
Q THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER YOU GIVE AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT YOU WOULD REMEMBER BLOOD SMEARS AT ROCKINGHAM?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU, SIR,
THAT IF THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE -- WELL, YOU SAW
BLOOD SMEARS INSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO,
DIDN'T YOU?
A TOWARD THE TOP, TOWARD THE WINDOW, YES.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE
DOOR?
A DOWN INSIDE THE VEHICLE?
Q YES.
A NO.
Q DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THAT CAR FOR HIM TO SEE THOSE BLOOD
SPOTS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED
THAT HE SAW BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO AND
YOUR RECOLLECTION IS YOU DID NOT SEE BLOOD SMEARS AND THAT
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO YOU, DID IT DAWN ON
YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THE BRONCO
TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE
WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.
THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S
TESTIMONY, THE BLOOD SMEARS HE SAW WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF
THE VEHICLE; NOT INSIDE.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THAT RAISE A QUESTION IN
YOUR MIND, SINCE YOU NEVER SAW BLOOD SMEARS OUTSIDE THE
VEHICLE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE WITNESS'
TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN,
SINCE YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY BLOOD STAINS OUTSIDE
THE VEHICLE?
A NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE THAT I
DIDN'T SEE ORIGINALLY.
Q I'M TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. WAS
THERE A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAT YOU
DIDN'T SEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME?
A YES. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS
ALONG THE PANEL OF THE DOOR AT THE BOTTOM.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS?
A I SAW A REPORT THAT THEY WERE TESTED
PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS YOURSELF?
A I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM, NO, SIR.
Q DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID SEE
THEM?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID NOT
RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO
THAT NIGHT BUT YOU DID SEE THEM AT SOME LATER TIME?
A I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL
SEEING THOSE SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I SHOW YOU YOUR TESTIMONY OF
YESTERDAY WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OFF A COMPUTER AND PERHAPS I
CAN READ IT TO HIM. THESE ARE OFF THE LIVE NOTES BUT WE
CAN MAYBE LOCATE IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE COURT: I WOULD PREFER THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WE
HAVE GONE TO --
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN CRIMINALIST FUNG CAME OUT
AT YOUR ORDER, DID HE TEST ANYTHING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
BRONCO FOR BLOOD?
A I BELIEVE THAT TESTING WAS DONE AT A LATER
DATE.
Q DID YOU PHOTOGRAPH HIM POINTING OUT ANY BLOOD
AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO OR CAUSE HIM TO BE
PHOTOGRAPHED DOING THAT?
A NO. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
DONE.
Q DID YOU ORDER PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN?
A YES, SIR, I DID.
Q WHAT DID YOU ORDER TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED?
A THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT I WAS AWARE OF.
Q AND DID YOU ORDER THE BLOOD -- THAT BLOOD STAIN
THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE BRONCO,
THAT WAS PRETTY SMALL?
A YES. AND IT WAS ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE, NOT
ACTUALLY ON THE HANDLE.
Q ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A
PHENOTHALINE TEST?
A YES. A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST ONLY SHOWS THAT
THE SUBSTANCE COULD POSSIBLY BE BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q IT COULD ALSO BE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES THAT
WOULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR --
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD
GIVE A POSITIVE READING?
A NO, I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT.
Q YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS AT
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN YOU WERE SITTING THERE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY --
HAVE YOU HEARD EXPERTS TESTIFY AS TO WHAT A PRESUMPTIVE
TEST FOR BLOOD IS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY
OTHER SUBSTANCES, BASED ON TESTIMONY YOU'VE HEARD FROM
OTHER EXPERTS, FROM EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, COULD BE A
SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN BLOOD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT IS A 352 PROBLEM.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME NOW GO BACK TO YOUR
TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY. I WANT TO DRAW THE COURT'S
ATTENTION TO PAGE 19556, LINES 1 AND 10, SIR, AND ASK YOU
TO READ THAT YOURSELF.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, MR. HARRIS,
PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: COULD THE COURT --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY?
MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO ASK THAT THE COURT REQUIRE MR.
SHAPIRO TO SHOW THE DETECTIVE --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE
COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK
AT THE MONITOR.
MR. DARDEN: MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO READ ALL THE WAY
DOWN TO LINE 22?
THE COURT: WE HAVE THE WHOLE --
MR. DARDEN: THE WHOLE EXCHANGE?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, YOU NEED TO BACK
OUT JUST A LITTLE THERE.
ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THE
QUESTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT YOU HEARD HIM
TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE
DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?
A I HEARD HIM TESTIFY TO THAT, YES.
Q AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, "I DID, YES"; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED:
"DID YOU SEE THOSE?"
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION:
"I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM
SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT."
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT MR. SHAPIRO
BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO THE JURY ALL OF THE -- RATHER,
THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE ALL THE WAY UP TO LINE 22.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE
PROPER FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO
SHOW. I THINK IT DIRECTLY IMPEACHES THE WITNESS.
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THE COURT: THIS IS CROSS.
MR. SHAPIRO: I MEAN A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE
PEOPLE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU ORDERED DETECTIVE --
YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST ON
THAT SMALL BLOOD DROP ON THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU REALIZE AT THAT TIME THAT BY DOING THE
TEST YOU WOULD PERMANENTLY DESTROY THAT EVIDENCE FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS?
A NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.
Q AND THAT IN FACT IS WHAT HAPPENED, ISN'T IT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO ANALYZE
THAT SPOT BY DNA ANALYSIS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: HAVE I BEEN ABLE TO?
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS ANYBODY, TO YOUR
KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ABLE TO?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK YOU CAN ASK HIM HAS
THAT BEEN SUBMITTED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS THAT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR
DNA ANALYSIS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU WENT
INTO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION AS
TO WHERE THE DETECTIVES SHOULD GO; IS THAT CORRECT?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT TIME? KIND OF VAGUE.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: AS YOU ENTERED ROCKINGHAM, YOU
TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU SEARCHED THE GROUNDS TO SEE IF
ANYBODY WAS INJURED IN THE AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AT THAT TIME DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO
DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO WHAT TO DO?
A NO.
Q DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
AS TO WHAT TO DO?
A NO.
Q DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE
PHILLIPS AS TO WHAT TO DO?
A NO.
Q IT WAS ALL BEING IMPROVISED BY EACH DETECTIVE,
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DESIRES?
A WELL, WE WERE ALL SEASONED POLICE OFFICERS.
OUR PURPOSES FOR BEING THERE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY WAS OKAY AT THE LOCATION.
Q DID YOU SEE WHERE DETECTIVE LANGE WENT?
A YEAH. I WAS CLOSE TO DETECTIVE LANGE MOST OF
THE TIME.
Q SO WERE YOU WORKING AS PARTNERS DURING THAT
OBSERVATION PHASE?
A YEAH. WE WORK AS PARTNERS ALL THE TIME, YES.
Q AND EVERYWHERE YOU WENT HE WENT?
A NOT EVERYWHERE, NO.
Q WHERE DID HE GO THAT YOU DIDN'T GO?
A HE WENT TO THE BACK DOOR OF THE LOCATION. I
LATER WENT THERE. HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN WHEN I WENT
INTO THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN
WHEN I WENT BACK INTO THE BAR AREA.
AND THEN I WAS OUT OF HIS VIEW FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME AFTER THAT.
Q DID YOU DIRECT ANYBODY, WHEN YOU ENTERED, TO
LOOK FOR PEOPLE TO FIND WHERE IS O.J.?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED
FROM YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: WE HAD DISCUSSED OUR PURPOSE FOR BEING
THERE AND OUR PURPOSE FOR GOING OVER THE WALL WAS TO CHECK
THE WELFARE AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OCCUPANTS AT THE HOME
THAT WAS KNOWN BETWEEN THE FOUR OF US.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT STANDARD POLICE
PROCEDURE, WHEN A WITNESS IS AWAKENED, TO GIVE THEM A TEST
FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG INTOXICATION?
A STANDARD?
Q YES.
A I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
REGARDING A MAN KNOWN AS BRIAN KATO KAELIN?
A NO.
Q HE GAVE YOU DIRECTION, THOUGH, DIDN'T HE?
A NO, HE DIDN'T GIVE ME DIRECTION.
Q HE DIDN'T TELL YOU TO TALK TO KATO?
A HE ASKED ME TO SPEAK WITH HIM.
Q DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO SPEAK TO
KATO ABOUT?
A BRIEFLY, YES.
Q WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT?
A HE SAID THAT KATO HAD HEARD SOME SOUNDS OUTSIDE
OF HIS ROOM THAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE AND HE WANTED
ME TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT.
Q AT THAT TIME DID YOU KNOW WHERE O.J. SIMPSON
WAS?
A I BELIEVE I WAS AWARE THAT A PHONE CALL WAS
BEING MADE TO FIND OUT WHERE HE WAS AT.
Q AT THAT TIME WERE YOU AWARE OF WHERE O.J.
SIMPSON WAS? YES OR NO?
A I -- I MAY HAVE BEEN. I'M NOT SURE.
Q DID YOU ASK KATO "WHERE'S O.J."?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DID HE TELL YOU HE HAD GONE ON A TRIP TO
CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?
A YES, HE DID.
Q AND HE PUT THAT -- AND YOU WROTE THAT DOWN IN
YOUR NOTES, DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW THAT -- DID YOU KNOW WHERE O.J.
WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED INTO THE HOUSE WITH THE
MAID -- LOOKING FOR THE MAID, I'M SORRY?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHEN YOU CAME IN LOOKING FOR THE MAID DID YOU
ASK ANYBODY WHERE'S O.J. AT THAT TIME?
A I DID NOT, NO.
Q DID YOU ASK ARNELLE SIMPSON "WHERE'S O.J."?
A AT WHAT POINT?
Q WHEN YOU CAME IN LOOKING FOR THE MAID?
A I HAD ASKED HER PREVIOUSLY.
Q DID YOU ASK HER IF HE WAS IN THE HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID SHE SAY?
A SHE GESTURED TOWARD THE HOUSE AND SAID "ISN'T
I HERE?" AND I ASKED HER, IS HE? DO YOU HAVE A KEY? CAN
WE GO CHECK?"
AND SHE TOOK US INTO THE HOME.
Q DID YOU ASK HER WHERE O.J.'S BEDROOM WAS?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT O.J., WOULDN'T YOU
WANT TO GO UP TO HIS BEDROOM AND SEE IF HE WAS STILL
SLEEPING?
A IF HE HADN'T HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, YES. HE
WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AT A POINT THERE THAT MORNING.
Q BUT HE WASN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IMMEDIATELY, WAS
HE?
A NO, SIR, HE WASN'T.
Q AND THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE MAID AND SITTING AND
TALKING TO KATO BEFORE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IS
O.J.; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A BEFORE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING FOR O.J.?
Q CORRECT.
A I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN WAS TO LOCATE O.J. AND
THAT WAS DONE QUITE QUICKLY AFTER WE ARRIVED IN THERE BY
PHONE CALL.
HE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR. THE MAID WAS OBVIOUSLY
NOT THERE. AT THAT POINT IS WHEN I BELIEVE I STARTED
WALKING BACK TOWARD THE BACK. I KNEW THEY WERE ON THE
PHONE ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE O.J. AT THAT POINT.
Q YOUR FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF
O.J. SIMPSON WAS BECAUSE OF A PHONE CALL?
A YES. I HEARD ARNELLE TELL EITHER DETECTIVE
PHILLIPS OR LANGE THAT SHE COULD MAKE A PHONE CALL TO HIS
SECRETARY AND SHE WOULD ALWAYS KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT.
Q AND DID YOU GET THE RESULTS OF THAT PHONE CALL?
A AT A LATER TIME, YES.
Q WHAT TIME DID YOU CONFIRM THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS
IN CHICAGO?
A OH, I WAS TOLD THAT BY KATO AND THEN I WAS
LATER TOLD THAT BY MY PARTNER.
Q WHAT TIME DID YOU CONFIRM IT?
A SHORTLY AFTER SIX O'CLOCK THAT MORNING.
Q WHAT TIME DO YOUR PHONE RECORDS INDICATE THAT
O.J. SIMPSON WAS CONTACTED IN CHICAGO?
A IF I COULD SEE THE RECORDS I COULD TELL YOU.
Q OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THOSE RECORDS?
A YEAH. THIS MAY BE IN MY BOOK THERE.
Q WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY, DIDN'T WE?
A YEAH.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK FOR THAT. THEY ARE
IN THIS BOOK.
MAY I BRING THESE UP, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: THERE ARE VOLUMES OF RECORDS. I'M
HAVING A HARD TIME RIGHT NOW LOCATING THEM.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAYBE -- YOUR HONOR, I WOULD HAVE NO
OBJECTION TO DETECTIVE LANGE HELPING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS
(SIC) TRY TO LOCATE THIS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE
INVESTIGATION NOTEBOOKS AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE PHONE
RECORDS FOR THAT POINT IN TIME.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME SUGGEST THAT
DETECTIVE LANGE MAKE THE RECORD SEARCH AND WE PROCEED WITH
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT YOUR POSITION, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, THAT PRIOR TO TRYING TO GO UP TO A BEDROOM OR
LOOK AROUND THE HOUSE FOR O.J., YOU DECIDED TO TRY TO
LOCATE HIM TELEPHONICALLY?
A I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. COULD YOU SAY
THAT AGAIN? MY CONTENTION WHAT?
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, COULD THAT BE REREAD TO THE
WITNESS?
THE COURT: "IS IT YOUR POSITION, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, THAT PRIOR TO TRYING TO GO UP TO A BEDROOM OR
LOOK AROUND THE HOUSE FOR O.J. YOU DECIDED TO TRY TO LOCATE
HIM TELEPHONICALLY?"
THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED WITH HIS
DAUGHTER, YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: HOW ABOUT IF WE REFER TO THE DEFENDANT
AS MR. SIMPSON.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU APPLIED FOR SEVERAL
SEARCH WARRANTS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND A SEARCH WARRANT REQUIRES AN AFFIDAVIT
SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, DOES IT NOT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT REQUIREMENT IS SO THAT AN INDEPENDENT
MAGISTRATE OR A JUDGE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD ISSUE AND NOT LET
THE POLICE RELY ON THEIR OWN INSTINCTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU
INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER, PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT
YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED
MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT?
A I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT.
Q YOU REPORTED --
A I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES.
Q AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?
A YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT?
A I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT
INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE
SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN
TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON
HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT
HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ.
Q YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH
WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR?
A I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE
MORNING.
Q AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A
MAGISTRATE, SIR?
A IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45.
Q AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND
CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT?
A YES.
Q AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN
THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR
INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J.
SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN
BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE
HUMAN BLOOD?
A YES, I SAID THAT.
Q AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT
A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD?
A THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED
ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I
THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT
HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD.
Q YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED
BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE
DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH
WARRANT?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A
SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T
-- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS
THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.
Q REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR
REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS
FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN
THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.
Q IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE
THEY SHOWN?
A THERE ARE NO NOTES.
Q WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN
THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S
NOTES.
Q WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN
THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.
Q WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN
THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?
A IT IS NOT, SIR.
Q WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT
SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE
RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY
DIRECTION.
Q WHEN WAS THAT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?
A THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.
Q AT YOUR DIRECTION?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?
A NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK
PRODUCT.
Q A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT
IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT
INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A
GLOVE?
A IT DOESN'T.
Q WHILE -- MR. BAILEY, WOULD YOU HELP ME WITH
THIS BOARD, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD THE COURT -- YOUR HONOR, MAY WE
TRY TO PUT IT OVER ON THIS SIDE? IT MIGHT --
THE COURT: SURE. THE TRADITIONAL LOCATION.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A DIAGRAM THAT YOU
PREVIOUSLY AUTHENTICATED AT THE DIRECTION OF MR. DARDEN; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND IN PUTTING UP A DIAGRAM FOR A JURY YOU WANT
TO BE CERTAIN THAT THAT DIAGRAM IS ACCURATE, DO YOU NOT?
A IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE, YEAH.
Q WELL, HAS ANYBODY LOOKED AT IT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT IS ACCURATE?
A IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, WHICH PEOPLE'S
EXHIBIT IS THIS?
MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS EXHIBIT 66, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IS A PATH OF BLOOD THAT LED FROM THE
CONTROL GATE AT ROCKINGHAM TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE
HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A PATH. THERE WAS
BLOOD DROPLETS THAT APPEARED TO BE A TRAIL, YES.
Q HOW MANY BLOOD DROPLETS CONSTITUTE A TRAIL?
A WELL, IT COULD GO FROM -- FROM ONE, TWO, TO
5000, IF IT PROCEEDED THAT FAR.
Q AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO
DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS
OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN; IS IT NOT?
A YES, IT IS.
Q I TAKE IT THEN THAT IF THERE WAS BLOOD COMING
FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, THAT SAME
PERSON WOULD BE BLEEDING AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOVE WAS
PLACED IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF KAELIN'S
ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT -- IS IT -- DID -- IS IT
YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS
BLEEDING AT THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q I TAKE IT THEN THERE WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH FOR
BLOOD FROM THE AREA OF ROCKINGHAM -- FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE
AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?
A NONE. NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Q I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THE AREA WAS SEARCHED, YES.
Q FOR BLOOD?
A WELL, SEARCHED FOR ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.
Q WAS IT SEARCHED FOR BLOOD?
A YES, SIR, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF
EVIDENCE.
Q HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?
A NONE.
Q I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FENCE WAS
UNDERTAKEN IF SOMEBODY CLIMBED THE FENCE FOR BLOOD?
A YES.
Q HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?
A NONE.
Q I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE
WALLS?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?
A NONE.
Q NOW, THE PERSON WHO DROPPED -- STRIKE THAT.
YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET INTO
THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE FROM THE SIDE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS
FOUND, ARE YOU NOT?
A I OBSERVED A DOOR THERE ON THE SIDE. I DON'T
KNOW WHERE IT LEADS INTO THE HOUSE.
Q THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN
YOUR INVESTIGATION, WASN'T IT, AS TO WHERE DOORS WOULD
LEAD?
A I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IMPACTED ME, NO.
Q YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED IF THERE WAS A WAY
FOR SOMEBODY TO AVOID DETECTION AND COME IN THROUGH THE
SIDE OF THE HOUSE?
A THERE DIDN'T APPEAR ANY -- TO BE ANY EVIDENCE
THAT ANYBODY HAD GONE IN THAT WAY.
Q DID YOU CHECK TO SEE?
A I LOOKED AT THE DOOR, YES.
Q WHERE DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOOR?
A FROM THE OUTSIDE.
Q WHICH DOOR DID YOU LOOK AT? WAS THAT THIS DOOR
HERE, (INDICATING)?
A IT WAS A DOOR THAT WAS TOWARD THE BACK OF THE
GARAGE, I BELIEVE, THAT MAY HAVE LED INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM
OR SOMETHING.
Q TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE?
A YES.
Q WHERE IS THAT DOOR SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM?
A MAY I STAND UP?
Q SURE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THAT.
A I BELIEVE IT IS SHOWN RIGHT IN HERE,
(INDICATING).
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE MARK THAT SOMEHOW FOR
IDENTIFICATION? MAYBE JUST A STICKER, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ONE AVAILABLE? I'M --
MR. SHAPIRO: YES. MAYBE WE CAN JUST USE AN EVIDENCE
TAG.
DO YOU WANT ME TO MARK IT WITH A MARKER, YOUR
HONOR? WHAT DO YOU PREFER?
THE COURT: BY GOLLY, YOU GOT ME UNPREPARED.
MRS. ROBERTSON, I HAVE SOME OF THOSE PEEL OFF
ARROW THINGS.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH IN
THE WELL, PLEASE.
MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A FULL SERVICE COURT.
THE COURT: IT IS.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU
BE KIND ENOUGH TO SHOW ME -- PUT THAT ON THE DIAGRAM.
A YEAH. I BELIEVE THIS INDICATES THE DOOR HERE,
(INDICATING).
Q THAT IS THE ONLY DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE
LOCATION THAT ALLOWS ACCESS INTO THE ROCKINGHAM CASE --
INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE, ACCORDING TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A I NEVER WENT THROUGH THE DOOR, SO I -- I DON'T
-- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DOORS THERE OR NOT.
I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER.
Q WELL, YOU HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THIS
HOUSE, DID YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND YOU ALSO WERE LOOKING AROUND TO SEE WHETHER
THERE WERE ANY BODIES LYING AROUND, WERE YOU NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU ALSO HAVE APPROVED OF THIS DIAGRAM,
HAVE YOU NOT?
A IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE TO ME, YES.
Q SO YOU WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW HOW ANYBODY
COULD GET INTO THE HOUSE AND TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THERE
IS ANY BLOOD TRAIL THERE, WOULD YOU NOT?
A THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL FOUND.
Q WELL, BUT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU
KNEW WHERE ALL THE ENTRANCES TO THE HOUSE WERE; ISN'T THAT
CORRECT?
A WELL, THERE WAS AN APPARENT BLOOD TRAIL THAT
LED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM THE STREET RIGHT INTO THE
FRONT DOOR.
I THINK THAT WOULD -- UNLESS YOU HAD A WHOLE
BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE BLEEDING, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY
OTHER BLOOD TRAILS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER BLOOD FOUND.
Q WOULD IT BE SURPRISE YOU, SIR, TO LEARN THAT
THERE IS A DOOR THAT GOES INTO THE GARAGE THAT LEADS INTO
THE KITCHEN OF THE HOUSE?
A NO, THAT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME. THAT IS A
POSSIBILITY. IT COULD BE THERE.
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, MR. SHAPIRO JUST PLACED
ANOTHER PIECE OF TAPE ON THE EXHIBIT.
THE COURT: HE DID.
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD ASK HIM TO REMOVE IT.
THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE PLACED ON
BY WITNESSES, IF POSSIBLE.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU REMOVED THE SECOND
ARROW, PLEASE, AT THIS POINT.
MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, CAN I JUST INDICATE THAT HE SAID
THAT -- ALL RIGHT. I WILL JUST REMOVE THAT.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALSO, YOU DETERMINED WHAT
OTHER WAYS THERE WAS -- EXCUSE ME.
DID YOU DETERMINE OTHER WAYS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL
MIGHT BE ABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROCKINGHAM GROUNDS,
OTHER THAN THE FRONT DOOR OR THROUGH THE TWO GATES?
A I BELIEVE -- YES.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS, AND I BELIEVE ACCESS COULD BE
GAINED THROUGH THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THROUGH THE
TENNIS COURT.
Q WOULD YOU INDICATE THAT WITH THE POINTER,
PLEASE.
A I NEVER WALKED THAT AREA, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT
YOU COULD ENTER THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND COME THROUGH
THE TENNIS COURTS AND THROUGH A GATE THAT WAS OVER IN THIS
AREA THAT CAME ONTO THE PROPERTY.
Q AND SO THAT -- IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO AVOID
BEING SEEN, THEY COULD ENTER THAT WAY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A OH, YEAH, THERE WOULD BE MANY WAYS YOU COULD
ENTER WITHOUT BEING SEEN, PROBABLY.
Q AND IS IT POSSIBLE, SIR, TO GET TO THIS AREA
OF THE HOUSE?
MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. I CAN'T SEE, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT POSSIBLE, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER, TO GET TO THE BACK DOOR OF THE HOUSE FROM THIS
AREA BY HEADING AROUND THE BACK TO WHERE ARNELLE'S ROOM IS?
A YES, THAT IS POSSIBLE.
Q THAT SIMPLY REQUIRES COMING RIGHT THROUGH THE
AREA MARKED "ARNELLE'S ROOM" BETWEEN THE TENNIS COURT AND
THE SIDE OF ARNELLE'S ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A AND CLIMBING TWO FENCES, CORRECT.
Q AND THAT FENCE -- TWO FENCES?
A TWO FENCES, YES.
Q ARE YOU SURE?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q DID YOU TRY TO CLIMB THOSE FENCES?
A NO, I DIDN'T.
Q THEY ARE ABOUT TWO FEET HIGH?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A ONE OF THEM IS ON ONE SIDE BECAUSE THERE IS A
WALL ON ONE SIDE OF IT. I THINK IT IS A REGULAR CYCLONE
CHAINLINK FENCE.
Q IT WOULDN'T BE AN IRON GRATED TYPE APPARATUS
THAT YOU COULD SIMPLY STEP ON AND WALK OVER, WOULD IT?
A I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.
Q DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT?
A I DON'T BELIEVE ANY WERE TAKEN BACK THERE, NO.
Q DID YOU EXAMINE THAT AREA -- I GUESS YOU DIDN'T
EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY YOURSELF.
DID YOU ASK ANYONE TO EXAMINE THAT AREA?
A I BELIEVE THE AREA WAS EXAMINED BY -- WITH A
METAL DETECTOR, YES.
Q DID ANYBODY ATTEMPT TO SEE HOW EASY OR
DIFFICULT IT COULD BE TO WALK OVER THAT FENCE?
A I NEVER DIRECTED THAT, NO.
Q BUT THAT WOULD BE A WAY ALSO FOR SOMEBODY TO
AVOID DETECTION IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SEEN BY ANYBODY
AT THE FRONT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A CERTAINLY, YES.
Q NOW, WHEN -- REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF MR.
SIMPSON, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
THAT WHEN HE WAS CALLED IN CHICAGO HE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON
MR. SIMPSON'S TRAVEL WHEN HE WAS CALLED IN CHICAGO, BY YOU
OR ANYONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A NONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY RETURNED TO
LOS ANGELES?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY ACCOMPANIED
YOU TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU
TO SEARCH A BAG THAT HE HAD?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY GAVE YOU A
-- TALKED WITH YOU IN THE CAR ON THE WAY TO THE STATION?
A YEAH. HE VOLUNTARILY TALKED, YES.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY SPOKE WITH
YOU IN A TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF
COUNSEL?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE ASKED TO HAVE A BLOOD
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM HIM?
A I ASKED IF I COULD TAKE A BLOOD SAMPLE.
Q DID HE VOLUNTARILY AGREE?
A YES.
Q YOU DON'T RECALL HIM SAYING "WHY DON'T YOU TAKE
MY BLOOD" AND TEST HIM?
A NO. I ASKED HIM FOR THE BLOOD.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES OF THAT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU RECORD THAT?
A RECORD WHAT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: THE CONVERSATION.
MR. DARDEN: THE CONTENT OF ANY --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE BLOOD.
THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.
THE WITNESS: I THINK -- I THINK THE --
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THANK YOU.
PROCEED.
THE WITNESS: I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, THERE WAS
A CONVERSATION. I ASKED HIM AND HE SAID "WHY DON'T YOU
TAKE IT" TYPE THING. I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.
DIDN'T HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOW YOU TO EXAMINE HIS
FINGER?
A YES, HE DID.
Q AND HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU TO PHOTOGRAPH
HIS FINGER?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU TO PHOTOGRAPH
HIS BODY?
A I DIDN'T PHOTOGRAPH HIS BODY.
Q DID YOU ASK PERMISSION TO?
A NO.
Q DID HE ASK YOU TO?
A NO.
Q ARE YOU SURE?
A POSITIVE.
Q IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T ASK TO
PHOTOGRAPH HIS BODY TO SEE IF HE HAD ANY BRUISES?
A HE WAS IN A SHORT-SLEEVE SHIRT. I DIDN'T SEE
ANYTHING ON HIS ARMS OR ANYTHING. THE ONLY THING I SAW WAS
HIS LEFT HAND THAT WAS INJURED.
Q YOU HAD CONCLUDED AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT
RONALD GOLDMAN HAD BEEN IN A VIOLENT STRUGGLE FOR HIS LIFE,
HAD YOU NOT?
A YEAH. A DEFENSIVE VIOLENT STRUGGLE AND
DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE ARE REALLY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Q SO YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED WITH LOOKING AT AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO MAY BE A SUSPECT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY
HAD ANY INJURIES ON THEIR BODY?
A I SAW INJURIES ON HIM ON HIS HAND.
Q WHAT ABOUT ON HIS CHEST? WOULD YOU BE
INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THAT?
A I DIDN'T ASK HIM TO DO THAT, NO.
Q MY QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN
LOOKING AT THAT?
A IF HE HAD BEEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AT THAT
POINT I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT. HE WAS NOT UNDER ARREST.
I NEVER ASKED TO HIM LOOK AT IT.
Q WELL, HE WAS AS COOPERATIVE AS ANYBODY COULD
BE, WASN'T HE?
A IF BEING TRUTHFUL IS BEING COOPERATIVE, THEN
THAT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE. I'M NOT SURE THAT HIS DEMEANOR
WAS COOPERATIVE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE INFORMATION WAS
TRUTHFUL.
Q DID HE DO EVERYTHING YOU ASKED OF HIM?
A YES.
Q WELL, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU WOULDN'T ASK
HIM IF YOU COULD EXAMINE HIS BODY AND PHOTOGRAPH IT?
A I DIDN'T DO THAT.
Q IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T?
A I JUST DIDN'T DO IT.
Q WELL, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T, BUT IS THERE A REASON
WHY YOU DIDN'T?
A I JUST DIDN'T DO IT, SIR. I DIDN'T ASK HIM.
I JUST DIDN'T DO IT.
Q DID YOU FORGET? DID YOU THINK IT WASN'T
IMPORTANT? IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NO VALUE AT ALL TO
YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT WHEN
HE ASKED ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD HE GAVE YOU THE
FOLLOWING RESPONSE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
COUNSEL, YOU NEED TO SHARE THAT WITH OPPOSING
COUNSEL.
MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR
HONOR?
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL SHARE IT WITH HIM RIGHT NOW.
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER,
PLEASE.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS COOPERATIVE AND
GAVE CERTAIN -- CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ISN'T A STATEMENT
FOR TESTIMONIAL PURPOSES.
WHAT IS THE NEXT QUESTION AND ANSWER?
MR. DARDEN: MR. SHAPIRO IS ABOUT TO READ TO THE JURY
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M NOT GOING TO TELL HIM THAT. THAT IS
NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AT ALL.
THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO ASK DETECTIVE VANNATTER
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT O.J. SIMPSON SAID, WELL, TAKE MY BLOOD
TEST AND WE WILL -- WELL, TAKE MY BLOOD --
MR. DARDEN: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN.
MR. SHAPIRO: -- TEST. I'M SORRY. WELL, TAKE MY
BLOOD TEST AND WE WILL SEE.
MR. DARDEN: IT IS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT. IT IS
HEARSAY. I HAVE BEEN OBJECTING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO MAKE SURE, IT HAS
JUST BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME, SO THAT THERE IS NO
MISUNDERSTANDING, WAS THERE ANY BLOOD TRAIL FOUND LEADING
AWAY FROM THE GLOVE INTO THE RESIDENCE?
A NO, I DIDN'T FIND ANY.
Q AND REGARDING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH KATO, DID
HE TELL YOU THAT A LIMOUSINE HAD COME TO PICK UP O.J.?
A HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD SEEN A LIMOUSINE THERE,
YES.
Q AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS AWARE OF THAT, WAS HE
NOT?
MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: IF HE KNOWS.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE I HEARD FROM HIS TESTIMONY
THAT HE KNEW THAT, YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU TOOK O.J.'S BLOOD
SAMPLE, YOU WERE AT A PLACE CALLED PARKER CENTER?
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT IS THE MAIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS?
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WOULD YOU KINDLY
ASK MR. COCHRAN TO RETURN TO HIS CHAIR, PLEASE.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, IS THERE SOME REASON YOU
NEED TO BE THERE?
MR. COCHRAN: I WAS SITTING OVER HERE BECAUSE OF THE
DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: IF WE ARE FINISHED WITH THAT --
THE COURT: I THINK WE ARE.
MR. COCHRAN: I WILL GO BACK TO MY SIDE GLADLY.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL WALK HIM BACK.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THAT THE MAIN HEADQUARTERS
FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES.
Q AND IS THAT A PLACE -- YOU USED THE WORD "BUY
A DR NUMBER." IS THAT A POLICE PARLANCE FOR OBTAINING THAT
NUMBER?
A YES.
Q YOU DON'T ACTUALLY GO TO A LOCATION, DO YOU, TO
BUY IT?
A NO. THAT IS JUST A TERM OF OBTAINING A DR
NUMBER.
Q AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY EASILY
OBTAINED AND VERY REGULARLY OBTAINED?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO OBTAIN A DR NUMBER,
DOES IT?
A NO.
Q YOU SIMPLY WALK DOWN TO THE CLERK AND ASK FOR
ONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, IN THIS CASE THE DR NUMBER --
Q NOT IN THIS CASE. IN THE GENERAL CASE YOU
SIMPLY WALK DOWN AND ASK FOR ONE?
A NO, NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Q HOW DO YOU GET A DR NUMBER?
A THE DR NUMBERS COME FROM THE DIVISION OF
OCCURRENCE WHICH MEANT THAT THIS DR NUMBER HAD TO COME FROM
WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION.
Q SO YOU HAVE TO GO OUT TO WEST LOS ANGELES TO
GET IT?
A OR TELEPHONE WEST LOS ANGELES.
Q SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU COULDN'T WALK
DOWNSTAIRS IN PARKER CENTER, GO TO THE CLERK AND ASK THE
CLERK TO CALL WEST LOS ANGELES TO GET A DR NUMBER?
A WELL, OF COURSE I COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
Q THAT WOULD TAKE, WHAT, LESS THAN A MINUTE?
A WELL, IF I DID IT THAT WAY IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN
LONGER THAN A MINUTE. I COULD HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE
PHONE CALL MYSELF; I DIDN'T.
Q HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE?
A PROBABLY TEN MINUTES' TIME.
Q AND THERE IS AN EVIDENCE LOCKER THERE TO STORE
BLOOD EVIDENCE, IS THERE NOT?
A YES.
Q AND THERE IS REFRIGERATION FACILITIES THERE?
A YES.
Q AND THE CRIMINAL LABORATORY THAT IS RUN BY THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?
A IT IS ON VIGNES STREET. IT IS CALLED PIPER
TECH.
Q HOW FAR IS PIPER TECH IN MILES, IF YOU KNOW,
FROM PARKER CENTER?
A APPROXIMATELY A MILE.
Q AND HOW LONG -- HOW FAR IS PARKER CENTER FROM
THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
A APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES.
Q 20 MILES?
A YEAH, APPROXIMATELY.
Q NOW, THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED FROM MR.
SIMPSON, THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, IS VERY SENSITIVE EVIDENCE, IS
IT NOT?
A YES, VERY SENSITIVE.
Q AND AS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE YOU WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BLOOD IN
THERE, DID YOU NOT?
A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BLOOD?
Q YEAH. YOU WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH BLOOD YOU
HAD TO START OUT WITH, DIDN'T YOU, BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING
TO USE THIS AS WHAT THEY CALL A REFERENCE SAMPLE?
A THAT WOULD NOT BE FOR ME TO DETERMINE. THE
AMOUNT DRAWN IS DONE BY THE NURSE AND THEN THE AMOUNT USED
IS DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST; NOT BY ME.
Q WHAT DID THE NURSE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE THAT
DREW THE BLOOD?
A I -- NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, SIR. I DIDN'T
DO THE DRAWING OF THE BLOOD; THE NURSE ACTUALLY DREW THE
BLOOD.
Q WHAT DID THE NURSE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE?
A THE NURSE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE. I ASKED
THE NURSE TO DRAW ME A BLOOD SAMPLE.
Q DID YOU ASK THE NURSE OR REQUEST THE NURSE TO
DRAW A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF BLOOD?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q YOU JUST LEFT THAT UP TO THE NURSE WHO KNEW
NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE?
A WELL, I THINK -- I THINK THERE IS STANDARDS FOR
DRAWING BLOOD SAMPLES.
Q WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS?
A I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T DRAW BLOOD SAMPLES.
Q WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THERE ARE STANDARDS?
A I WOULD ASSUME THAT A SAMPLE THAT IS TAKEN IS
A STANDARD SAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
Q AND DOESN'T LAPD POLICY REQUIRE BLOOD SAMPLES
TO BE BOOKED IMMEDIATELY?
A AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, YES.
Q DOES IT SAY "IMMEDIATELY" OR "AS SOON AS
PRACTICAL"?
A WELL, IMMEDIATE -- IMMEDIATELY TO ME MEANS AS
SOON AS PRACTICAL.
Q WELL, I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU, BUT I'M
SAYING WHAT DOES THE POLICY SAY WITHOUT YOUR
INTERPRETATION?
A AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Q IT SAYS "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE"? IS THAT WHAT
THE MANUAL --
A YES.
Q ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?
A WELL, IT SAYS "IMMEDIATELY" OR -- LET ME
WITHDRAW THAT. IT SAYS "IMMEDIATELY" IS WHAT IT SAYS. TO
ME "IMMEDIATELY" MEANS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, AS SOON AS CAN
BE DONE.
Q AND AS SOON AS CAN BE DONE WAS WHEN YOU HAD IT
IN YOUR HAND TO WALK DOWN, CALL UP, GET YOUR DR NUMBER, AND
IN THE SAME BUILDING YOU WERE IN, TURN IT OVER TO THE
EVIDENCE ROOM AND HAVE THAT MARKED AND BOOKED AND PROPERLY
REFRIGERATED, RIGHT?
A THAT COULDN'T BE DONE AT THAT POINT.
Q WHY NOT?
A BECAUSE OTHER EVIDENCE HAD BEEN GATHERED.
EVIDENCE HAS TO BE BOOKED IN A SEQUENCE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
NUMBER THE BLOOD WOULD BE IN THE SEQUENCE.
TO ME, ONCE I TURNED IT OVER TO THE
CRIMINALIST, IT HAS BEEN BOOKED ANYWAY.
Q SO YOU ARE TELLING US UNDER OATH THAT YOU, AS
THE LEAD DETECTIVE, COULD NOT HAVE BOOKED A VIAL OF BLOOD
TAKEN FROM O.J. SIMPSON AT PARKER CENTER WHERE THE BLOOD
WAS TAKEN?
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?
A NO, NO, NO. I COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: I WAS JUST ABOUT TO TAKE A BREAK.
MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I NEED TO CHANGE
COURT REPORTERS AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T
FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL
THE MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO YOU.
WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL ELEVEN O'CLOCK.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR.
(RECESS.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE
WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN
REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS STILL ON THE
WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.
THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BOOKING
ITEMS IN SEQUENCE.
WHEN YOU REFER TO THAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO
ALLOWING THE CRIMINALIST TO ASSIGN BOOKING NUMBERS IN THE
ORDER THINGS ARE COLLECTED?
A UMM, THAT IS GENERALLY THE WAY IT IS DONE;
HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE. SOMETIMES
CERTAIN ITEMS HAVE TO BE BOOKED BEFORE OTHER ITEMS.
Q AND BLOOD CAN ALSO BE BOOKED AT PIPER TECH
DIRECTLY TO THE CRIME LAB, CAN IT NOT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IS A MILE AWAY?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YET IT WAS YOUR PREFERENCE -- MAY WE PUT A
DIAGRAM UP ON THE ELMO WHICH WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DARDEN: NOT YET. FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION.
MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK HE HAS PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHERE WAS DETECTIVE LANGE AT
THE TIME YOU TOOK O.J.'S BLOOD SAMPLE FROM THE NURSE?
A HE WAS WITH ME.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT THE BLOOD SAMPLE, WHAT TYPE OF
CONTAINER WAS IT IN?
A IT WAS IN A PURPLE-TOPPED VIAL.
Q DID IT HAVE ANY MARKINGS ON IT?
A YES. THERE WAS A TAG THAT WAS PUT ON IT WITH
MR. SIMPSON'S NAME AND THE DATE AND TIME IT WAS DRAWN.
Q WHO PUT THAT ON?
A THE NURSE.
Q WHAT TIME WAS IT DRAWN?
A I COULD LOOK AT THE RECORD AND TELL YOU
EXACTLY. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME. IT WAS
BETWEEN 3:00 AND 3:30, APPROXIMATELY.
Q BETWEEN 3:00 AND 3:30?
A YES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q AND AFTER YOU TOOK THAT BLOOD VIAL, WHAT TYPE
OF SECURITY DID YOU USE FOR THAT BLOOD VIAL?
A I PLACED IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE, MAINTAINED
CONTROL OF IT AND HAND-DELIVERED IT TO THE CRIMINALIST.
Q WHERE WAS THE CRIMINALIST?
A AT ROCKINGHAM.
Q HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?
A BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT -- THE
EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AT
APPROXIMATELY -- AFTER -- AFTER 12:00 NOON AND I KNEW THAT
THERE WERE STILL OFFICERS AT THE LOCATION, AND I BELIEVE
THAT HE WAS AT THE LOCATION ALSO.
Q YOU BELIEVED, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW?
A WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN.
Q YOU DIDN'T CALL HIM AND SAY, "ARE YOU AT THE
LOCATION? I'VE GOT SOME BLOOD TO BRING TO YOU"?
A NO, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE.
Q YOU DIDN'T CALL ANYBODY THERE IN CHARGE TO SEE
WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS?
A NO.
Q AND THERE WERE MANY AREAS WHERE A CRIMINALIST
COULD BE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A WELL, I KNEW HE WAS EITHER -- EITHER AT BUNDY
OR ROCKINGHAM, YES.
Q SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF THE TWO?
A WELL, I ASSUMED ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE I KNEW THE
SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AFTER 12:00 NOON.
Q ALL RIGHT.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU A MAP OF THE AREAS WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY --
THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, CAN WE GET A SLIGHTLY TIGHTER
FOCUS ON THAT, A LITTLE --
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHERE PARKER
CENTER IS? DO YOU SEE THAT?
A YES. I SEE THE NOTATION THERE, YES.
Q AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY YOU SAY A LITTLE OVER
A MILE TO PIPER TECH?
A I BELIEVE IT IS APPROXIMATELY A MILE, YES.
Q A MILE. AND THOSE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE
TOLD US THE BLOOD COULD BE BOOKED?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU LEFT PARKER CENTER?
A STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM.
Q WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE?
A SANTA MONICA FREEWAY TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY.
Q YOU WERE DRIVING?
A WE WERE BOTH DRIVING. WE TOOK OUR CARS, TOOK
OUR OWN CARS.
Q WHERE WAS THIS BLOOD VIAL?
A WITH ME IN MY VEHICLE.
Q WHERE?
A IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON THE FRONT SEAT OF MY
CAR.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY ICE OR REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
WITH YOU?
A NO. I KNEW THERE WAS PRESERVATIVE IN THE VIAL
WHEN THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN.
Q HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU TEST IT?
A NO, BUT I KNOW THAT VIALS THAT ARE USED BY THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR BLOOD SAMPLES CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE.
Q SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE?
A WELL, I THINK -- OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO SAY
SUPPOSED TO. IT IS MY INFORMATION THEY CONTAIN
PRESERVATIVES IN THE VIALS.
Q YOU HAVEN'T TESTED THAT AND YOU HAVE NO
INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PRESERVATIVE BEING IN THERE,
DO YOU?
A NO, SIR. I HAVEN'T TESTED IT, NO.
Q NOW, YOU JUST HAVE THIS BLOOD IN YOUR CAR.
WASN'T THERE A RISK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE BLOOD IN
TRANSPORTING IT THAT DISTANCE?
A NO. THE RISK WAS ME NOT KEEPING CONTROL OF THE
BLOOD, THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE BLOOD, TO GIVE IT TO THE
CRIMINALIST. THAT WAS THE RISK.
Q I TAKE THAT IT IF YOU WALKED IT FROM WHERE YOU
WERE IN PARKER CENTER RIGHT UP TO THE EVIDENCE ROOM THERE
WOULD BE MUCH LESS RISK?
A WELL, AT THAT POINT THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED --
Q MY QUESTION WAS RISK, SIR. I DON'T MEAN TO
INTERRUPT YOU.
A I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT. THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN A GREATER RISK. THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL
CONTROL OVER THE ITEM.
Q SO YOU ARE TELLING US THAT AT PARKER CENTER
THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT ITEM AND BOOKED IT
IMMEDIATELY?
A NO, I COULD HAVE DONE THAT. I MADE THE
DECISION TO HAND CARRY IT TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO WAS
PROCESSING ALL THE OTHER -- ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE.
Q DID YOU RUN A RISK OF DROPPING IT IN CASE YOU
SLIPPED ON THE WAY IN AND OUT OF YOUR CAR?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION TO THIS LINE OF QUESTION AS
IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I GUESS THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU RUN A RISK OF, GOD
FORBID, BEING IN AN ACCIDENT?
A THANK GOD I WASN'T.
Q THAT WAS A RISK THAT YOU CHOSE TO RUN?
A THAT IS A RISK, SIR, EVERY TIME I GO OUT IN THE
STREETS.
Q BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE A RISK TO CARRY IT DOWN
AND BOOK IT AT PARKER CENTER, WOULD IT?
A NO.
Q YOU LEFT, YOU SAY, AT THE LATEST, AT 3:30 FROM
PARKER CENTER?
A NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I THINK IT WAS -- I
THINK IT WAS AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK THAT I LEFT PARKER CENTER.
Q WELL, YOU GOT THE BLOOD AT 3:30?
A YEAH. I DIDN'T LEAVE IMMEDIATELY FROM THERE.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD?
A I WENT BACK UP TO MY OFFICE.
Q FOR WHAT?
A TO START ASSEMBLING SOME OF THE -- SOME OF THE
INFORMATION I HAD AND -- AND TO ORGANIZE MYSELF AND THEN TO
GO OUT TO ROCKINGHAM.
Q AND HOW DID YOU ASSEMBLE THIS INFORMATION? DID
YOU TAKE NOTES?
A I WAS JUST -- IT HAD BEEN A LONG DAY. I MAY
HAVE EVEN HAD A CUP OF COFFEE WHEN HE WENT UP THERE, I
DON'T RECALL, BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
Q AND YOU DIDN'T KEEP ANY RECORDS OF WHAT YOU
DID?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.
Q AND THE BLOOD WAS WITH YOU?
A YES.
Q WHERE WAS THE BLOOD? IN YOUR JACKET?
A NO. I WENT TO MY DESK AND I HAD IT IN A MANILA
ENVELOPE ON MY DESK.
Q DID YOU LEAVE ANY RECORD -- WAS LANGE WITH YOU?
A LANGE WAS WITH ME, YES.
Q AND WERE YOU TALKING WITH LANGE?
A I'M SURE I WAS, YEAH. I TALK WITH HIM ALL THE
TIME.
Q ARE YOU SURE LANGE WENT UP TO YOUR OFFICE WITH
YOU?
A YEAH, I'M SURE.
Q NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
A LANGE WAS WITH ME AFTER TWELVE O'CLOCK MOST OF
THE EVENING UNTIL ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK.
Q AND DID LANGE HAVE COFFEE WITH YOU IN YOUR
OFFICE?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR COFFEE FROM?
A FROM A COFFEE MACHINE IN THE OFFICE. I SAID I
MAY HAVE. I'M NOT POSITIVE I DID. I MAY HAVE HAD A CUP OF
COFFEE.
Q AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD THAT?
A YEAH, THAT'S TRUE, SURE.
Q AND YOU MAY HAVE SPENT A HALF HOUR THERE AND
YOU MAY NOT HAVE?
A I THINK I WAS THERE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR BEFORE
I LEFT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD TO INDICATE THAT?
A NO, SIR, I DON'T.
Q DID YOU KEEP ANYTHING YOU DID AFTER YOU GOT THE
BLOOD? DID YOU MAKE A NOTATION, "I'VE GOT THE BLOOD NOW,
HERE IS WHAT I'M DOING WITH IT"?
A NO.
Q YOU LEFT AT FOUR O'CLOCK?
A APPROXIMATELY, YES.
Q HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM PARKER
CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM AT FOUR O'CLOCK?
A AS I RECALL, THE TRAFFIC WAS PRETTY HEAVY. I
THINK IT TOOK AN HOUR, MAYBE A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR.
Q AND HOW DID YOU GO?
A I BELIEVE I TOLD YOU THE SANTA MONICA FREEWAY
TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY TO SUNSET BOULEVARD.
Q AND THEN SUNSET BOULEVARD TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q THAT TOOK YOU ABOUT AN HOUR?
A I THINK SO, YEAH, APPROXIMATELY.
Q DID YOU LOG IN WHAT TIME YOU ARRIVED AT
ROCKINGHAM?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS LOGGED ON THE LOG WHEN I GOT
THERE, YES.
Q I'M SAYING DID YOU LOG IN?
A I BELIEVE THE LOGGING OFFICER LOGGED ME IN,
YES.
Q WHAT TIME DID HE LOG YOU IN AT?
A I THINK AT APPROXIMATELY 5:20, AS I RECALL.
Q SO WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN FIVE O'CLOCK AND 5:20
WHEN YOU GOT THERE BEFORE YOU LOGGED IN?
A WELL, IT IS TOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR A MINUTE BY
MINUTE ACCOUNTING. I DROVE STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM, CHECKED
IN AND IMMEDIATELY GAVE THE BLOOD TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO
HAD FINISHED HIS WORK AND WAS LEAVING.
Q YOU DIDN'T GO TO BUNDY FIRST?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS OR
EVEN IF HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU?
A I ASSUMED HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM. HE WAS AT
ROCKINGHAM, AS A MATTER OF FACT.
Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY ACCOUNTING FOR TIME
THAT IS REPORTED IS THE TIME THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN WHICH YOU
SAY IS 3:30 AND THE TIME THAT YOU LOGGED IN AT ROCKINGHAM,
WHICH IS 5:20, ALMOST TWO HOURS?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND MAZZOLLA WAS WITH FUNG AT THE TIME YOU
TURNED THE BLOOD OVER?
A I DON'T RECALL SEEING MAZZOLLA. SHE COULD HAVE
BEEN THERE. I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER.
Q YOU HEARD MAZZOLLA TESTIFY SHE WAS ALWAYS WITH
FUNG, DIDN'T YOU?
A I'M GOING ON MY OWN PERCEPTION. I DON'T RECALL
SEEING HER THERE.
Q WHERE WAS LANGE?
A LANGE WAS THERE WITH ME.
Q SO IT WAS YOU, LANGE AND FUNG?
A NO. THERE WERE OTHER OFFICERS THERE, TOO.
Q WHAT OTHER OFFICERS WERE THERE?
A WHAT OTHER OFFICERS?
Q YEAH.
A I RECALL DETECTIVE LUPER, DETECTIVE LEFALL,
THERE WERE SOME UNIFORMED OFFICERS THERE.
MR. DARDEN: CAN WE TAKE THE MAP AND BOARD DOWN, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: DO WE NEED THIS ANY MORE?
MR. SHAPIRO: WE DO.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES. THERE
WERE OFFICERS THERE.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF PARKER
CENTER?
A NO.
Q DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF PIPER TECH?
A NO.
Q WHERE DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF?
MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE TAKE THE
BOARD DOWN?
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE TAKE IT DOWN, PLEASE.
THAT SHOULD BE MARKED 1058, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON?
THE CLERK: YES.
THE COURT: YES.
(DEFT'S 1058 FOR ID = MAP)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHERE DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF?
A NORTHEAST STATION.
Q WHERE IS THAT?
A IT IS ON YORK BOULEVARD, I BELIEVE.
Q ON WHERE?
A SAN FERNANDO, I'M SORRY. SAN FERNANDO, I
BELIEVE. IT IS IN NORTHEAST SECTION.
Q I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. SAN FERNANDO
VALLEY?
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE
BOTH TALKING AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHT. TELL US WHERE THE NEW NORTHEAST
STATION IS.
THE WITNESS: IT IS OFF OF THE GLENDALE FREEWAY AT I
BELIEVE YORK, YORK BOULEVARD.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, DID YOU WANT ALL THE
EVIDENCE TO BE BOOKED DOWN AT PIPER TECH?
A YES.
Q THAT IS THE MOST SECURE PLACE, ISN'T IT?
A WELL, THAT IS WHERE SEROLOGY IS ANALYZED. I
WOULDN'T SAY IT IS THE MOST SECURE PLACE, NO.
Q AND DID YOU DIRECT FUNG AS TO WHERE TO TAKE
THIS BLOOD FOR BOOKING?
A DETECTIVE FUNG WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TAKE TO IT
PIPER TECH FOR BOOKING.
Q HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
A BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF HIS JOB.
Q DO YOU KNOW THAT HE DID THAT?
A NO. I WASN'T WITH HIM 24 HOURS A DAY, NO.
Q DID HE GIVE YOU A RECEIPT FOR THE BLOOD YOU
GAVE HIM?
A HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES. HE DIDN'T GIVE ME A
RECEIPT. HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES.
Q DID YOU NOTICE, WHEN YOU TOOK THE BLOOD,
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD DRIPPING IN THE AREA OF
THE CORKED PORTION OF THE TUBE?
A I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD DRIPPING.
Q DID YOU LOOK?
A I LOOKED AT THE VIAL. I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD
DRIPPING.
Q HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TAKEN BLOOD FROM
PARKER CENTER OUT TO A CRIME SCENE?
A I DON'T KNOW. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE FIRST
TIME. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW ANY OTHER
TIME THAT I HAVE DONE THAT.
Q HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN A
MURDER CASE WHERE YOU HAVE TAKEN A STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY
FROM A SUSPECT AND NOT INTRODUCED IT INTO EVIDENCE?
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE
IMPLICATION OF THAT QUESTION.
THANK YOU. PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY SPECIAL
COACHING SESSIONS PRIOR TO YOU TAKING THE WITNESS STAND
TODAY?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL TRAINING IN HOW TO
TESTIFY?
A HAVE I EVER?
Q YEAH.
A WELL, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE GAVE US AN HOUR OR
TWO IN THE POLICE ACADEMY, YEAH. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO,
THOUGH.
Q DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS
CASE REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY?
A OH, I SEE THEM ON A DAILY BASIS, YES.
Q DID YOU MEET WITH THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REVIEWING YOUR TESTIMONY?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY MOCK TESTIMONY OR
CROSS-EXAMINATION?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q WERE YOU EVER BROUGHT TO A GRAND JURY ROOM TO
BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY SEVERAL LAWYERS?
A NO, SIR.
Q HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING IN ANY
CASE BEFORE?
A I'VE HEARD OF MOCK EXAMINATIONS, BUT WHEN YOU
SAY "GRAND JURY ROOM," I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
Q AND IN 26 YEARS ON THE POLICE FORCE, HOW MANY
TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS?
A MANY, MANY TIMES.
Q CAN YOU DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT BY NUMBER?
A MANY, MANY, MANY. I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
Q YOU TOLD US YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 200
HOMICIDE CASES, 500 INVESTIGATIONS?
MR. DARDEN: IS THAT A QUESTION?
THE WITNESS: MANY, MANY TIMES. MAYBE -- I DON'T
KNOW. MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: HUNDRED?
A I WOULD SAY MORE THAN THAT.
Q AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB AS A PROFESSIONAL
POLICE OFFICER, TO TESTIFY, ISN'T IT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU ARE IN A WAY A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS?
A THAT IS PART OF MY JOB, YES.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD TO DO ANYTHING REGARDING
YOUR EMOTIONS WHEN YOU TESTIFY?
A NO.
Q AT ANY TIME, WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT
MORNING, DID YOU HEAR ARNELLE OR KATO EVER USE THE WORD
"UNPLANNED"?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WORD USED BY
CATHY RANDA OR ATTRIBUTED TO HER?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WORD USED BY ANYONE?
A NO.
Q YOU LISTENED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY,
DID YOU NOT?
A PART OF IT; NOT ALL OF IT.
Q DID YOU LISTEN TO THE PART WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT
INTERVIEWING KATO KAELIN?
A I HEARD PART OF IT, YES.
Q DID YOU HEAR THE PART THAT THE PROSECUTOR ASKED
HIM A QUESTION WHY --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
MS. CLARK: PAGE, LINE, WHAT?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, FOUNDATION. FOUNDATIONAL
OBJECTION AT THIS POINT.
MR. DARDEN: HE IS GOING TO READ. MAY I TAKE A LOOK
AT WHAT HE INTENDS TO READ?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS YOUR QUESTION, I'M SORRY.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO LET ME KNOW, TOO?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: PAGE --
THE COURT: WHAT VOLUME, COUNSEL?
MR. SHAPIRO: 18694, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHAT VOLUME?
MR. SHAPIRO: VOLUME, 106, LINE 3 THROUGH 5.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, WHAT PAGE?
MR. SHAPIRO: 18694, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE WELCOME.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS CROSS.
MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT?
MS. CLARK: YES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: I STAND CORRECTED. THAT WAS NOT MR.
DARDEN'S QUESTION OR MISS CLARK'S QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE TO
BOTH OF THEM FOR SAYING THAT IT WAS.
MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN OBJECTION. THIS IS
IMPROPER.
THE COURT: LET ME HEAR THE QUESTION.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE QUESTION.
MR. SHAPIRO: YES.
THE QUESTION IS DID HE HEAR THIS QUESTION BEING
ASKED OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER:
"WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL HIM THE SUBJECT" --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THE TRANSCRIPT --
THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MR. DARDEN, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
MR. DARDEN: THE TRANSCRIPT RELATES TO DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY; NOT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S. THIS IS
IMPROPER.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE HEARD THIS
TESTIMONY AND IF HE CAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS
ANSWER AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S.
THE COURT: PROCEED, PROCEED.
MR. SHAPIRO: YES.
Q THE QUESTION WAS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN:
"WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL HIM," REFERRING TO
YOU, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, "THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH
HE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED IF HE WAS GOING TO INTERROGATE A
WITNESS?"
HIS ANSWER:
"NO REASON. I WANTED TO GO AND INVESTIGATE THE
NOISE TO SEE IF WE COULD EVEN GET TO THAT SOUTH WALL.
"WHY DID YOU NOT TELL HIM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO
INVESTIGATE A NOISE AND HE SHOULD FINISH THE INVESTIGATION?
"NO REASON."
MR. COCHRAN: INTERROGATION.
MR. SHAPIRO: THE INTERROGATION.
"NO REASON."
THANK YOU.
Q DID YOU HEAR THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES.
Q WHICH IS CORRECT, YOUR TESTIMONY OR DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN'S, AS TO THAT INCIDENT?
A MY TESTIMONY IS BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF
WHAT HAPPENED; NOT ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S RECOLLECTION. MY
RECOLLECTION IS HE TOLD ME.
Q AND HIS RECOLLECTION IS DIFFERENT?
A THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT TO REVIEW
SOME MATERIAL, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE
BRONCO.
YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED THE BRONCO TO BE
SECURE WHEN IT WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT TIME WAS THAT?
A AT WHAT POINT OF THE DAY ARE YOU ASKING ME
ABOUT?
Q WHEN DID YOU WANT IT TO BE SECURE? WHEN DID
YOU DECIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE
SECURED?
A APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING.
Q AND BY "SECURED," YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
NO TRACE EVIDENCE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH REGARDING THAT
VEHICLE?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q THAT NO EVIDENCE INSIDE THAT VEHICLE COULD BE
TAMPERED WITH?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q AND THAT NO EVIDENCE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA OF
THAT VEHICLE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q SO YOU WANTED TO CORDON OFF THAT ENTIRE AREA
WITH TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO. I PUT UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS ON THE
VEHICLE TO PROTECT THE VEHICLE.
Q WELL, YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE PRESS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A THAT -- THAT OCCURRED DURING THE DAY, YES.
Q AND IN ORDER TO PROTECT FROM THAT ONSLAUGHT,
WOULD IT BE A GOOD PROCEDURE TO CORDON OFF THAT AREA WITH
TAPE SO NOBODY ENTERS IT, BECAUSE THAT IS NEW A CRIME
SCENE?
A WELL, YEAH, YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE -- THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A GOOD IDEA; HOWEVER, AT THE TIME I LEFT THERE,
THERE WAS -- AS I RECALL, THERE WAS NO ONE THERE AND I HAD
OFFICERS PROTECTING THE VEHICLE.
Q HOW MANY OFFICERS DID YOU ASSIGN TO PROTECT THE
VEHICLE?
A A TWO-MAN UNIFORMED CAR.
Q WHO ARE THEY?
A I BELIEVE THEIR NAMES WERE GONZALEZ AND ASTON.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM?
A TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, PROTECT THE
VEHICLE AND IMPOUND THE VEHICLE.
Q WHAT ABOUT THE SURROUNDING AREAS? WERE YOU
CONCERNED ABOUT THE GRASSY AREA AND POSSIBLE TRACE EVIDENCE
THAT MIGHT BE THERE?
A I HAD THE CRIMINALIST THERE AT THAT POINT AND
HE WAS AWARE OF THAT AND HE WAS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE
EVIDENCE.
Q DID YOU CORDON THAT AREA OFF?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q WHY NOT?
A AT THAT POINT I HAD IT PROTECTED.
Q BY THE OFFICERS?
A THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q YOU TOLD THEM TO NOT LET ANYBODY GO IN THAT
AREA, ALSO?
A I TOLD THEM TO PROTECT THAT AREA, PROTECT THAT
VEHICLE, YES.
Q WHAT ABOUT THE STREET RIGHT OUTSIDE THE
DRIVER'S DOOR? THERE IS A POSSIBILITY YOU COULD FIND SOME
FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE THERE, ISN'T THERE NOT?
A I DON'T THINK ON THE ASPHALT THAT THAT IS
POSSIBLE, NO.
Q NO?
A I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
Q DID YOU TALK TO MR. BODZIAK ABOUT THAT, YOUR
EXPERT?
A I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE, NO. NO, I
DIDN'T.
Q HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING IN HIS BOOK ABOUT HOW
YOU SHOULD PROTECT FOR THIS EVENTUALITY?
A NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T.
Q WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM IF HE SAID THAT
WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT AREA TO PRESERVE?
A NO, I WOULDN'T DISAGREE. HE IS AN EXPERT; I'M
NOT.
Q WOULDN'T THE PROPER PROCEDURE THEN TO BE TO
ACTUALLY CORDON OFF THAT WHOLE STREET WHERE THE BRONCO WAS
ON BOTH SIDES SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF
CONTAMINATING THAT CRIME SCENE, SIR?
A WELL, I GUESS IF WE ARE GOING TO THAT EXTENT,
I GUESS THE PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE TO BE CORDON OFF
BETWEEN BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM AND SEARCH THE ENTIRE AREA.
THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE. I DIDN'T DEEM THAT
NECESSARY AT THAT POINT.
Q AND YOU LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE PRESS WAS NOT
ONLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRONCO, BUT HAD SPILLED COFFEE
ON THE HOOD OF THE BRONCO WHILE IT WAS BEING SECURED BY
YOUR OFFICERS, DID YOU NOT?
A I WAS TOLD THAT BY YOU, YES.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD THAT BY ANYONE ELSE?
A I SAW IT IN THE -- I SAW THAT THERE WERE COFFEE
STAINS TO BE DISREGARDED IN THE TOW REPORT, YES.
Q AND YOU ALSO HAVE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF A
CIVILIAN RUNNING UP AND TOUCHING THE EXACT AREA WHERE YOU
SAW THE BLOOD, DID YOU NOT?
A I SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF A -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE
A WOMAN LOOKING INTO THE VEHICLE, YES.
Q YOU ARE AWARE THAT THINGS WERE STOLEN FROM THAT
BRONCO, WERE YOU NOT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE AWARE THAT BRONCO WAS
NEVER PROPERLY PROTECTED, ARE YOU NOT?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION.
SUSTAINED.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE AWARE OF EVIDENCE
REGARDING A BLANKET THAT WAS TAKEN FROM BUNDY TO BE USED ON
ONE OF THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU NOT?
A NO, I WASN'T. I WASN'T AT BUNDY WHEN THAT WAS
DONE.
Q ARE YOU AWARE THAT WAS DONE?
A I AM, YES, NOW.
Q AND IS THAT PROPER PROCEDURE, TO TAKE A BLANKET
FROM A HOME, TAKE IT OUTSIDE AND USE TO IT COVER A VICTIM?
A WELL, I THINK THAT SHOWS PROPER RESPECT FOR A
VICTIM THAT IS LAYING IN PUBLIC VIEW THAT CAN BE SEEN, THAT
THE DETECTIVE OR THE POLICE OFFICER HAS ENOUGH RESPECT TO
TRY AND COVER THAT PERSON, YES.
Q I AGREE WITH YOU.
BUT I'M ASKING YOU A BLANKET FROM A HOUSE,
COULD THAT HAVE HAD TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT?
A THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, SURE.
Q IF MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN A GUEST IN THAT HOME,
MIGHT HIS HAIR BE ON THAT BLANKET?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT POSSIBLE HIS HAIR COULD
BE ON THAT BLANKET?
MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE
MIGHT BE SEMEN ON THAT BLANKET THAT WHEN COMING IN CONTACT
WITH BLOOD FROM THE VICTIM COULD CONTAMINATE DNA?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS
WASN'T THERE. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD THAT BE A LEGITIMATE
CONCERN TO HAVE AS THE LEAD DETECTIVE?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED HE WAS
CONCERNED THERE MIGHT BE TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT. THAT COVERS
A WHOLE PANOPLY OF THINGS.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: THAT BLANKET ITSELF MAY HAVE
HAD TRACE EVIDENCE, RIGHT?
MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO
THIS.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD IT BE PROPER TO LEAVE
THAT BLANKET AT THE SCENE AND NOT TAKE IT AS EVIDENCE?
A THAT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY MY
PARTNER.
Q MY QUESTION IS WOULD IT BE PROPER?
A THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT
COULD BE; IT COULDN'T.
Q WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
A WELL, I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT
EITHER. I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY MADE THE SAME DETERMINATION
MY PARTNER DID.
MR. SHAPIRO: JUST ANOTHER MINUTE, YOUR HONOR,
PLEASE.
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU TESTIFIED REGARDING
WESTEC, THAT WESTEC CAME ON THEIR OWN WHILE YOU WERE AT THE
ROCKINGHAM SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THERE WAS A UNIT, YES, THAT WAS TRAVELING
SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM THAT WAS WAVED DOWN BY DETECTIVE
PHILLIPS.
Q WHO WERE THE OCCUPANTS OF THAT VEHICLE?
A IT WAS A ONE-MAN UNIT AND I DON'T RECALL THE
PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER'S NAME.
Q DID YOU ALSO CAUSE WESTEC TO BE CALLED AND ASK
FOR A UNIT TO BE SENT OUT?
A I ASKED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO CONTACT THEM TO
SEE IF WE COULD GET ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE ESTATE
THERE, YES.
Q AND DID HE?
A TO MY KNOWLEDGE HE DID, YES.
Q DID HE ASK, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, FOR A UNIT TO BE
SENT OUT?
A I THINK THAT OCCURRED WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO
THE FIRST UNIT THERE REGARDING A PHONE NUMBER. I THINK
THAT UNIT REQUESTED A SUPERVISOR BE SENT TO THE LOCATION.
Q WHAT TIME WAS THAT?
A THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND -- I BELIEVE AROUND
5:30 IN THE MORNING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT TIME DID THAT UNIT
ARRIVE?
A WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME SERGEANT ROSSI CALLED
WESTEC?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS IN YOUR MURDER BOOK
TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME SERGEANT ROSSI
CALLED WESTEC?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES. I'M SURE THERE IS DOCUMENTS IN
THERE, YES.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF I SHOWED YOU THAT, WOULD
THAT HELP YOU?
A YES.
Q LET ME SHOW YOU PAGE 0641 OF YOUR MURDER BOOK.
HAVE YOU SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?
A YES.
Q IS THAT A DOCUMENT FROM YOUR MURDER BOOK?
A YES.
Q AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT
TIME SERGEANT ROSSI CALLED WESTEC?
A THIS IS A -- THIS IS A HANDWRITTEN NOTE THAT
SOMEONE MADE. I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACTUAL TIMED -- TIMED
TRANSCRIPT THAT WOULD SHOW THE TIMES, BUT THIS INDICATES
THAT --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. JUST USED TO REFRESH HIS
RECOLLECTION.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS
TO WHAT TIME WESTEC WAS CALLED?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE NEVER HAD
ORIGINAL INFORMATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE INDICATED WOULD IT REFRESH
YOUR RECOLLECTION.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: MY QUESTION IS DOES IT?
A WHEN THEY WERE FIRST CALLED?
Q WHEN THEY WERE CALLED BY LAPD?
A WELL, I DIDN'T MAKE THE PHONE CALLS. I BELIEVE
THE FIRST PHONE CALL WAS MADE APPROXIMATELY 5:15 TO 5:30.
Q I'M ASKING YOU IF THIS DOCUMENT, SIR, REFRESHES
YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A NO. NO, THIS IS NOTES. THIS DOESN'T MEAN
ANYTHING.
Q WHOSE NOTES ARE THOSE?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHY ARE THEY MURDER IN THE BOOK?
A I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHO PUT THEM IN THE MURDER BOOK?
A OBVIOUSLY WE DID. THEY CAME FROM SOMEONE.
MAYBE SERGEANT ROSSI. I DON'T KNOW.
Q WELL, SERGEANT ROSSI, IF HE MADE THOSE NOTES,
WOULD BE IN THE COURSE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A I DON'T KNOW WHOSE NOTES THOSE ARE.
Q DON'T THOSE NOTES INDICATE THAT THE CALL WAS
MADE --
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU
TO CHECK ON THIS INFORMATION, SINCE IT DIFFERS FROM THE
TESTIMONY YOU ARE GIVING US?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE
IMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU RETURNED TO -- DID
YOU EVER RETURN TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE PRIOR TO THE TAPE
BEING REMOVED?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHEN WAS THAT?
A IT WAS ON TWO OCCASIONS. I STOPPED THERE ON MY
WAY FROM ROCKINGHAM TO WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO INFORM
MY PARTNER OF WHAT I WAS PREPARING TO DO.
Q AND THAT WAS TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT?
A YES. AND THEN I STOPPED BACK BY THERE ON MY
WAY BACK TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE WARRANT TO INFORM MY
PARTNER OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.
Q I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY YOU GAVE IN THIS CASE, PAGE 336 AND PAGE
337. I HAVE GIVEN COUNSEL A COPY.
DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE A GRAND JURY IN
THIS CASE?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY,
THERE IS NO LAWYER REPRESENTING THE --
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
GRAND JURY, WERE YOU ASKED SOME QUESTIONS BY A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY?
A YES.
Q BY WHOM?
A MISS CLARK.
Q AND DID MISS CLARK ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS:
"I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WENT TO
SECURE A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE LOCATION OF 360 ROCKINGHAM?
"ANSWER: THAT'S CORRECT."
AND THEN SHE ASKED:
"AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?"
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A THAT IS POSSIBLE, YES.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL YOUR ANSWER:
"AFTER SECURING THE WARRANT I RETURNED TO
THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION"?
A THAT IS WHAT I ULTIMATELY DID.
Q YOU DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING THAT YOU WENT TO
BUNDY NEXT?
A NO. WHAT I ULTIMATELY DID WAS I RETURNED TO
THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.
Q AND WHEN YOU WERE AT BUNDY DID YOU EVER WALK
INTO ANY AREAS CONTAINING POTENTIAL EVIDENCE WHILE THE
CRIME SCENE WAS STILL SECURE?
A THAT IS POSSIBLE AT ONE POINT, YES. I MAY
HAVE.
Q DID YOU WALK INTO ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE WHILE THE
CRIME SCENE WAS STILL SECURE?
A NO, SIR.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE SHOW THE VIDEO, PLEASE?
THE COURT: HAVE WE MARKED THIS?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THIS SHOULD BE 1049.
THE COURT: 1059.
MR. SHAPIRO: 1059, I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
(AT 11:40 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT
1059, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE STOP THAT RIGHT THERE, PLEASE.
Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE IN THAT VIDEO?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO RUN IT BACK?
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE
THAT VIDEO, SIR?
A YES. I SAW THREE PEOPLE FROM THE START.
IT WAS MYSELF, LIEUTENANT ROGERS AND
CRIMINALIST FUNG.
Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PERSON THAT APPEARS TO BE
STANDING ON A SHEET COVERED WITH BLOOD?
A YES. THAT IS MYSELF.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.
Q YOU EXAMINED THE INDEX FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON
AND OBSERVED IT TO HAVE A CUT WHICH YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED
HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND I TAKE IT YOU EXAMINED THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE
AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DIDN'T. I HAD IT EXAMINED.
Q AND WAS A CUT FOUND ON THE LEFT HAND GLOVE AT
BUNDY THAT WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE CUT ON O.J.
SIMPSON'S LEFT HAND?
A NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THERE WAS NO CUT ON THE
LEFT-HAND GLOVE THAT YOU FOUND AT BUNDY?
A NO.
Q BUT THERE WAS A CUT ON THE DEFENDANT'S HAND
WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE A CUT ON THE
DEFENDANT'S HAND WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM?
A YES.
Q WHAT SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, DO YOU ATTACH TO --
A I BELIEVE THE WAY THE CUT OCCURRED DURING THE
--
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE DURING THE STRUGGLE THE
LEFT-HAND GLOVE WAS LOST AND DROPPED ON THE GROUND AND THAT
IS WHEN THE CUT OCCURRED, WHEN THE HANDS WERE NOT
PROTECTED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
SO IS IT SIGNIFICANT THEN, SIGNIFICANT AT ALL
THAT THERE WAS NO CUT ON THE LEFT-HANDED GLOVE, AS
DESCRIBED BY MR. SHAPIRO?
A NO. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT.
Q MR. SHAPIRO ASKED YOU YESTERDAY IF YOU FOUND
ANY BLOODY CLOTHING AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME.
DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER AT THE TIME?
A YES.
Q WHAT BLOODY CLOTHING WAS FOUND BY THE LAPD AT
THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?
A A PAIR OF THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS FROM HIS
BEDROOM.
Q WERE THOSE SOCKS SUBMITTED FOR TESTING, IF YOU
KNOW?
A YES.
Q WERE THEY TESTED FOR BLOOD?
A YES.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE BROWN
SIMPSON'S BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THOSE SOCKS?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND
HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WERE THOSE SOCKS TESTED FOR THE
PRESENCE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BLOOD?
A YES.
Q WERE THEY TESTED FOR THE PRESENCE OF RONALD
GOLDMAN'S BLOOD?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: AND WERE THEY TESTED FOR THE
PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD?
A YES.
Q AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE TEST FINDINGS ARE
AS THEY RELATE TO THE SOCKS?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.
THE COURT: HE CAN ANSWER YES OR NO, BUT THE RESULTS
ARE HEARSAY.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT AT SOME POINT, AT ONE
POINT ON JUNE 13TH YOU CONSIDERED THE DEFENDANT A SUSPECT;
IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
GIVEN YOUR AWARENESS OF THE TEST FINDINGS, THAT
IS, THE TESTING OF THE SOCKS IN THIS CASE --
THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN
OBJECTION.
I ASSUME WE WILL GET TO THAT EVENTUALLY.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU WATCHED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
TESTIFY; IS THAT CORRECT?
A PART OF IT, YES; NOT ALL OF IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED HERE IN COURT TODAY AND
YESTERDAY, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
TESTIFY, WAS THERE A POINT WHERE YOU FELT THAT HIS -- HIS
RECALL WAS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS?
A WELL, I THINK THAT HAPPENS IN EVERY CASE. I
THINK THAT IS A NORMAL THING.
Q OKAY.
A TWO PEOPLE DON'T PERCEIVE THE SAME THING OR THE
SAME OCCURRENCE THE SAME WAY.
Q WE DON'T ALL REMEMBER THE SAME THINGS?
A ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q OKAY. DID YOU ATTEMPT TO SHIFT OR CHANGE YOUR
TESTIMONY OR MODIFY YOUR FUTURE TESTIMONY TO FIT DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN'S?
A NO, SIR. MY TESTIMONY IS BASED ON MY
RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENTS.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEND A SWAT TEAM INTO THE
DEFENDANT'S HOME?
A I DID NOT.
Q WHY NOT?
A BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I HAD THERE. IF --
IF I HAD KNOWN THAT HE WAS A MURDER SUSPECT AT THAT POINT
OR KNOWN THAT SOMEONE WAS A HOSTAGE AT THAT POINT, THAT
WOULD BE HANDLED AS A FIELD TACTICAL SITUATION.
TO CALL IN PEOPLE AT THAT POINT WITHOUT KNOWING
WHAT I HAD THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TREMENDOUS STRAIN AND
WASTE OF MANPOWER, AND BEFORE YOU DO THAT YOU HAVE TO
DETERMINE WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH IN A FIELD SITUATION.
Q WELL, HAD YOU CONSIDERED THE DEFENDANT A
SUSPECT AT FIVE O'CLOCK THAT MORNING?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU DID NOT?
A NO.
Q WELL, HAD YOU CONSIDERED HIM A SUSPECT, WOULD
YOU HAVE APPROACHED HIS HOME OR HIS RESIDENCE IN A MANNER
DIFFERENT FROM THE APPROACH YOU AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES
USED?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q WHAT DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED?
A YOU ARE DEALING WITH A FELONY SUSPECT AT THAT
POINT. I WOULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVES PUT ON PROTECTIVE
ARMOR. I WOULD HAVE US PUT ON RAID JACKETS THAT IDENTIFIES
US AS LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICERS.
I WOULD HAVE HAD UNIFORMED OFFICERS ACCOMPANY
ME. I WOULD HAVE HAD OFFICERS STATIONED AT THE FRONT AND
THE REAR OF THE LOCATION TO PRECLUDE ANY POSSIBLE ESCAPE.
AND IF I -- AND IF I WOULD HAVE DETERMINED
THAT HE WAS IN AND HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE DOOR, WE WOULD HAVE
FORCED ENTRY INTO THE LOCATION.
Q YOU DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT IN THIS CASE?
A I DID NOT, NO, SIR.
Q NOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ASKED KATO KAELIN
IF THERE WAS AN EXTRA SET OF KEYS TO THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
ADVISED YOU THAT HE FOUND THE GLOVE AT THE DEFENDANT'S
HOME?
A IT WAS AFTER.
Q NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US ALREADY THE BLOOD
TRAIL FROM THE BRONCO -- FROM THE BRONCO LEADING INTO THE
DEFENDANT'S FRONT DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT, DETECTIVE?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU'VE ALSO DESCRIBED FOR US YOUR FINDING
OF THE GLOVE, OR RATHER, YOUR VIEWING OF THE GLOVE ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY BLOOD DROPS IN THE
AREA OF THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A I DID NOT.
Q BUT YOU DID FIND BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHAT IS THE SURFACE COMPOSED OF, THAT IS,
THE SURFACE AT BUNDY WHERE YOU FOUND BLOOD DROPS?
A IT IS A -- IT IS A CEMENT -- CEMENT WALKWAY
THAT RUNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE -- OF THE RESIDENCE AND
RUNS EAST AND WEST FROM THE FRONT WALKWAY TO THE ALLEY.
Q OKAY.
AND THE SURFACE WHERE YOU FOUND OR RATHER WHERE
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN FOUND THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHAT IS
THAT SURFACE COMPOSED OF?
A THAT IS ALSO A CEMENT SURFACE THAT IS ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE THAT WAS HEAVILY COVERED WITH
DEBRIS AND LEAVES AND --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: IF WE CAN JUST PULL UP 116, YOUR HONOR,
THE GLOVE BOARD.
THE COURT: YES. MR. FAIRTLOUGH.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: WE CAN LEAVE IT BACK THERE.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 116,
DETECTIVE --
A MAY I STEP DOWN?
Q PLEASE.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q ARE THE LEAVES ON THE WALKWAY AS DEPICTED IN
THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, DETECTIVE?
A YES, SIR.
Q THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE, AREN'T THEY?
A YES, SIR, THEY ARE.
Q DID YOU PICK UP EACH AND EVERY LEAF ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY AND EXAMINE IT?
A I DID NOT, NO, SIR.
Q DID YOU TURN EACH LEAF OVER AND EXAMINE IT?
A NO. I DID NOT.
Q YOU TOLD MR. SHAPIRO THAT YOU FOUND NO BLOOD ON
THE FENCE OR ON THE GATE OR ON THE WALL?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT IS IN THE SOUTH SIDE AREA, ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY. STEP BACK UP, PLEASE.
A THANK YOU.
(WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q BUT YOU DID FIND BLOOD IN THE DRIVEWAY?
A AT ROCKINGHAM, YES.
Q YES. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO
DROPPED THE GLOVE CLIMBED OVER THE FENCE AT ROCKINGHAM?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: IT IS LEADING, "IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT."
LEADING.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO
HOW THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM ENTERED
THE PROPERTY?
MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: HOW?
A I BELIEVE THEY -- I BELIEVE HE USED A KEY TO
COME THROUGH THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AFTER PARKING THE VEHICLE
IN THE STREET THERE, JUST NORTH OF THE GATE, WALKED DOWN TO
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
Q WHICH GATE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
A THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.
Q DID YOU HAVE A KEY TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?
A NO.
Q IN ADDITION TO NOT -- WELL, STRIKE THAT.
THE PERSON THAT DROPPED THE GLOVE AT
ROCKINGHAM, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON WAS
ACTUALLY BLEEDING AS THEY WALKED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE HOUSE.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. SHAPIRO: SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE
PERSON THAT DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM WAS BLEEDING AT
THE TIME?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE
PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM HAD HIS LEFT
HAND IN HIS POCKET AT SOME POINT?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT
PERSON WAS CARRYING ANYTHING?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SHAPIRO: ASK THE JURY TO DISREGARD THIS LINE OF
QUESTIONING.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
Q YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DID NOT FIND -- OR HAVE
NOT FOUND THE MURDER WEAPON?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IS THAT UNCOMMON IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THAT
IS, NOT TO FIND THE MURDER WEAPON?
A NO. THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON AT ALL.
Q ARE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOUND
THE MURDER WEAPON?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A THE KNIFE IS A VERY EASY ITEM TO DISPOSE OF.
IT COULD BE DISPOSED OF ANY PLACE. I HAVE CASES THAT I
HAVE NEVER FOUND THE BODIES ON, SO IT IS NOT UNUSUAL NOT TO
FIND A MURDER WEAPON.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE
PERSON THAT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DISPOSE OF THE MURDER WEAPON?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE
MURDER SCENE?
A AT BUNDY?
Q YES.
A 4:05 IN THE MORNING.
Q OKAY.
WHAT TIME DID YOU FIRST MAKE CONTACT WITH THE
DEFENDANT?
A PERSONAL CONTACT?
Q YES.
A SHORTLY AFTER 12:00 NOON THE FOLLOWING DAY, OR
THE SAME DAY, I'M SORRY.
Q OKAY.
A THE 13TH OF JUNE.
Q DID YOU HAVE THE DEFENDANT UNDER SURVEILLANCE
BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. SUNDAY NIGHT AND 12:00 NOON THE
FOLLOWING MONDAY?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU TOLD US THAT YOU TOOK NO NOTES UPON YOUR
INITIAL ARRIVAL AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q IS THAT UNUSUAL OR UNCOMMON, THAT UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES YOU DID NOT TAKE NOTES UPON YOUR ARRIVAL AT
ROCKINGHAM?
A IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL. AFTER ARRIVING THERE AND
TO MERELY MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION, THE SITUATION QUICKLY
ESCALATED INTO WHAT I CONSIDERED AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND
I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE NOTES.
WE NOTED THE TIME THAT WE LEFT TO GO TO
ROCKINGHAM IN OUR CHRONOLOGICAL, WHICH COVERED IT.
Q OKAY.
AND THE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE
PHILLIPS MADE THAT DAY, ARE THOSE CALLS LOGGED SOMEWHERE?
A I DIDN'T MAKE ANY, BUT THERE IS PHONE BILLS ON
THE PHONE CALLS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS MADE, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBSERVED AT
ROCKINGHAM THAT DAY, HAS THAT EVIDENCE BEEN PRESERVED
SOMEHOW?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU MEMORIALIZE SOMEHOW WHERE AND UNDER
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND?
A YES.
Q HOW DID YOU DO THAT?
A IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT. IT
IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS
MEMORIALIZED BY THE CRIMINALIST WHO I DIRECTED TO PROTECT
AND RECOVER THE EVIDENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IS IT MEMORIALIZED IN PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL?
A DEFINITELY, YES. THAT IS PART OF THE
CRIMINALIST'S FUNCTION ALSO, WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Q WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT
ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU CHECK THE DOORS, THAT IS, THE DOOR TO
THE LAUNDRY ROOM OR ANY OTHER DOOR ON THAT SIDE OF THE
HOUSE?
A I DID NOT.
Q DID ANYONE ELSE?
A I BELIEVE MY PARTNER DID.
Q DETECTIVE LANGE HERE?
A YES.
Q HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
A HE TOLD ME.
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY; MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND
ANSWER.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU DO KEEP SOMETHING KNOWN AS
A CHRONO LOG OR CHRONOLOGICAL LOG; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q THAT IS A LOG THAT YOU KEEP IN THE FILE THAT WE
COMMONLY REFER TO AS A MURDER BOOK; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL
LOG?
A THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG IS A DAILY REFERENCE TO
ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE DURING THE COURSE OF THE MURDER
INVESTIGATION.
IT MERELY INDICATES THAT A CERTAIN ACTIVITY
TAKES PLACE, NOT WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS OR WHAT -- WHAT THE
FINDINGS ARE, MERELY THAT THAT ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU MAKE A NOTE OF EVERYTHING OR EACH AND
EVERY OCCURRENCE THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING THE DAY?
A NO, SIR. THAT WOULD ALMOST BE IMPOSSIBLE. WE
WOULD BE DOING NOTHING BUT MAKING NOTES IF WE DID THAT.
Q WELL, WITH REGARD TO THE DRAWING OF THE BLOOD,
THAT IS, THE SAMPLE DRAWN FROM THE DEFENDANT, IS THE DATE
AND TIME OF THAT OCCURRENCE MEMORIALIZED SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW?
A YES, IT IS.
Q WHERE?
A IT IS MEMORIALIZED ON THE CONSENT FORM THAT WAS
SIGNED BY MR. SIMPSON.
Q AND THE DATE AND TIME ON WHICH YOU GAVE THAT
BLOOD VIAL TO THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, IS THAT
MEMORIALIZED SOMEWHERE?
A YES, SIR, IT IS.
Q WHERE?
A IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN MR. FUNG'S NOTES.
Q IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER AT ALL ABOUT YOUR
TRANSPORTING THE BLOOD VIAL FROM PARKER CENTER OUT TO
ROCKINGHAM TO THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: GROUNDS?
MR. SHAPIRO: SELF-SERVING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO. I AM ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IN
CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS COLLECTED AND SECURED.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING YOU
WROTE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?
A I BELIEVE THE FIRST THING I WROTE WAS MY
ARRIVAL TIME AT -- AT BUNDY, AND THEN AFTER THAT I BEGAN TO
WRITE A STATEMENT ON KATO KAELIN.
Q OKAY. AND DID YOU PRESERVE THOSE NOTES?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU WROTE?
A THE SEARCH WARRANT.
Q WHAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL, WAS IT THAT YOU FIRST
SAW THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:15 TO 6:30.
Q AND WHAT TIME DID YOU BEGIN WRITING THE SEARCH
WARRANT?
A BETWEEN 7:45 AND EIGHT O'CLOCK.
Q AND WAS THE SEARCH WARRANT THE SECOND THING, OR
RATHER, THE THIRD THING THAT YOU WROTE THAT MORNING?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE
SEARCH WARRANT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DESCRIBE HAVING SEEN THE BRONCO IN THE
SEARCH WARRANT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DESCRIBE HAVING SEEN BLOOD ON THE
OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO?
A YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU INDICATE THAT ONE OF
THE DETECTIVES RAN THE PLATE ON THE BRONCO TO SEE WHO IT
WAS REGISTERED TO?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOVE FOUND
AT ROCKINGHAM RESEMBLED THE GLOVE AT BUNDY?
A YES.
Q DOES THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM RESEMBLE THE GLOVE
AT BUNDY?
A IT APPEARS TO BE A MATCHED PAIR.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK A BOARD NEXT IN
ORDER. I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN IT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.
THE COURT: 125.
(PEO'S 125 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD W/PHOTOS)
MR. DARDEN: WAS THAT PEOPLE'S 125, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU
TO STEP DOWN.
A YES, SIR.
(WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.
A YES, SIR.
Q TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THEY DEPICT THE GLOVE
FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM AND THE ONE FOUND AT BUNDY?
A YES, THEY DO.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT EACH OF THOSE GLOVES
WERE SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?
A YES.
Q THE GLOVE AT BUNDY WAS SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE RESULTS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INDICATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT
AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU OBSERVED BLOOD DROPLETS LEADING FROM THE
BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN TO ARNELLE
SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU --
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, DO WE NEED THIS BOARD UP
ANY LONGER?
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU GOING TO USE THIS ANY
MORE?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHOW IT TO THE
JURY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE DO THAT AND THEN WE WILL
TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: TWO SECONDS.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE?
THE COURT: JUST A SECOND. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE THE
JURY FIRST.
MR. SHAPIRO: I WAS GOING TO SAY BEFORE THE JURY IS
EXCUSED.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR
RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION.
PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS.
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU.
WE WILL RECONVENE PROMPTLY AT 1:30.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. 1:30,
SIR.
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS.
(AT 12:04 P.M. THE NOON RECESS
WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
THE SAME DAY.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995
1:35 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, MR. SHAPIRO.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE
INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, VERY QUICKLY.
MISS CLARK HAS AGREED THE VIDEOTAPES WE
SUBPOENAED FOR THE MEDIA COULD BE RELEASED AND MISS
ROBERTSON SAID THAT NEEDED TO BE ON THE RECORD. SO RELEASED
TO US FOR COPYING AND RETURNED TO THE COURT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES?
ALL RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: HAVE THE MANUALS ARRIVED?
THE COURT: YES, THEY DID.
MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE SEE THOSE OVERNIGHT?
THE COURT: SURE.
ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE TAKE CARE OF THAT WHEN
WE CONCLUDE.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.
MS. CLARK: ARE WE GOING TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF --
MR. COCHRAN: APPARENTLY THEY ALREADY DID THAT.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE
SEATED.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE
WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE COURT: DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS ON THE
WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
DARDEN.
PHILIP VANNATTER,
THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE
VANNATTER.
THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER
OATH.
MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE WITH YOUR REDIRECT
EXAMINATION.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DETECTIVE, DURING MR. SHAPIRO'S
CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT EXPECT TO
SEE ANY INJURIES ON MR. SIMPSON'S BODY?
A I THINK I TESTIFIED I DIDN'T SEE ANY ON HIS
BODY, YES, OTHER THAN HIS LEFT HAND.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU EXPECT TO SEE INJURIES ON HIS BODY?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A WELL, FROM WHAT I COULD SEE OF HIS FACE AND
HIS ARMS, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INJURIES OTHER THAN TO HIS
LEFT HAND. HE HAD ON A SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT, AND FROM
LOOKING AT THE VICTIMS, IT APPEARED TO ME THAT INJURIES
RECEIVED TO THE HANDS AND ARMS OF RON GOLDMAN WERE
DEFENSIVE WOUNDS, WHICH DEFENSIVE WOUNDS ARE WOUNDS WHERE
YOU ARE TRYING TO WARD SOMETHING OFF. YOU'RE NOT BEING
DEFENSIVE BY STRIKING OUT.
Q YOU TOLD US A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS WELL --
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: YOU'VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS I TAKE
IT OF RON GOLDMAN THAT INDICATE CUTS OR ABRASIONS NEAR THE
KNUCKLES ON ONE OF HIS HANDS?
A YES.
Q ON BOTH HANDS?
AND WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IF ANY DO YOU ATTACH TO
THOSE INJURIES?
A THE BRUISES ON HIS HANDS?
Q YEAH. ON MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS.
A THE BRUISES COULD HAVE OCCURRED WHILE HE WAS
FALLING, WHILE HIS ARMS WERE BEING FLAILED AROUND. THEY
COULD HAVE HIT THE SHRUBBERY, THE TREES, THE METAL FENCE.
I DIDN'T NOTICE BRUISES DIRECTLY OVER THE KNUCKLES, ON TOP
OF THE KNUCKLES THAT WOULD BE COMMON IF THEY HAD STRUCK A
HARD OBJECT WITH A CLOSED FIST.
Q OKAY.
AND TO GO BACK TO THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR A
MOMENT, WHEN YOU WROTE THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THEN GAVE IT
TO THE MAGISTRATE, DID YOU INDICATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT
THAT YOU HAD GONE TO ROCKINGHAM TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION?
A YES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. DARDEN: I HAVE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, YOUR HONOR. MAY
THEY BE MARKED NEXT IN ORDER?
THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 126 AND 127.
(PEO'S 126 AND 127 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 126,
DETECTIVE --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT IS SHOWN IN THAT
PHOTOGRAPH, DETECTIVE?
A THAT'S A PORTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM
SHOWING THE FOOT OF THE BED, AND AT THE FOOT OF THE BED IS
A RUG OVER THE CARPETING WITH A PAIR OF SOCKS.
Q AND 127, WHAT'S SHOWN THERE?
A THAT'S A CLOSE-UP OF THE PAIR OF SOCKS THAT
WERE SEEN IN THE PREVIOUS PICTURE.
Q WERE THOSE SOCKS SEIZED?
A YES, THEY WERE.
Q AND DID YOU FIND A BLOOD TRIAL AT ALL IN THE
DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM?
A YES.
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: YES. OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU.
THE COURT: RECROSS.
MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHAPIRO:
Q YOU HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE VICTIM MR. GOLDMAN
DID NOT HIT THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION. THERE
COULD HAVE BEEN -- THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A MEETING OF THE
TWO PEOPLE, BUT THE INJURIES TO ME -- APPEARED TO ME TO BE
DEFENSIVE INJURIES, AND DEFENSIVE INJURIES ARE USUALLY
SUSTAINED BY HOLDING THE ARMS UP OR TRYING TO GRAB
SOMETHING SUCH AS A WEAPON THAT'S BEING USED ON YOU.
Q YOU'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING THIS CASE FOR NINE
MONTHS?
A YES.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT MR. GOLDMAN BEFORE HE DIED ATTEMPTED TO STRIKE HIS
ASSAILANT?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION IF HE STRUCK HIS
ASSAILANT?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW?
A I'M ONLY GOING ON WHAT I CAN SEE.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW?
A WELL, THE ONLY WAY THAT WOULD BE KNOWN IS IF I
COULD ASK THE ASSAILANT OR MR. GOLDMAN I WOULD THINK.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO
INVESTIGATE?
A IT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, YES.
Q AND IS ONE WAY OF FINDING THAT OUT BY LOOKING
AT SUSPECTS TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY WOUNDS THAT MIGHT BE
CONSISTENT WITH BEING HIT IN A FIGHT?
A THAT'S ONE WAY OF FINDING OUT IF A PERSON HAS
BEEN HIT, YES.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE JUST MADE UP YOUR MIND THAT THESE
INJURIES TO MR. GOLDMAN WERE -- OCCURRED WHEN HE WAS
FALLING DOWN, HAVEN'T YOU?
A NO. NOT AT ALL.
Q YOU DON'T HAVE ANY BASIS FOR THAT OPINION, DO
YOU, IN SCIENCE?
A OTHER THAN SEEING DEFENSIVE WOUNDS MANY, MANY
TIMES. THEY APPEARED TO BE DEFENSIVE WOUNDS.
Q AND YOU CAN TELL A DEFENSIVE WOUND FROM AN
OFFENSIVE WOUND?
A WELL, NORMALLY -- NORMALLY, DEFENSIVE WOUNDS
OCCUR TO THE HANDS AND ARMS, YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS FOR A
MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE A BRUISE ON MY HAND.
MR. DARDEN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WE'LL HAVE MR. SHAPIRO MARKED AS --
MR. SHAPIRO: CAN I BE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT?
I WOULD LIKE -- I MEAN, CAN I ASK HIM IF HE HAS
AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE
WOUND?
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS ABSURD, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I AGREE.
MR. SHAPIRO: DO WE HAVE -- CAN I HAVE THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: SHOW MR. DARDEN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I PUT UP SOME PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE
ELMO, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU WANT TO TELL ME --
MR. SHAPIRO: -- SAME SEQUENCE THAT MR. DARDEN HAS
PUT UP?
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS MARKED 126. WE'LL MARK OURS
1060 AND 1061.
THE COURT: 1060 AND 1061.
(DEFT'S 1060 AND 1061 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHEN PHOTOGRAPH
126 WAS TAKEN THAT MR. DARDEN SHOWED YOU, SIR?
A IT WAS TAKEN AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS
SECURED I WOULD ASSUME.
Q YOU WOULD ASSUME?
A YES. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE ACTUAL SEARCH WAS
DONE.
Q I KNOW. BUT THERE ARE LOGS FOR THESE THINGS,
AREN'T THERE, CALLED PHOTO LOGS?
A I THINK THE PHOTOGRAPHER DOES THEM BY NUMBER,
YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE TIMED.
Q WELL, WAIT. YOU'RE THE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR; ARE
YOU NOT?
A ONE OF THEM, YES.
Q AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN
IF YOU'RE NOT THERE TO TAKE THEM, DON'T YOU?
A WELL, I KNOW THEY WERE TAKEN ON THE 13TH OF
JUNE.
Q NO. NO.
MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHEN
PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO LIKE
YOU ANSWERED MR. DARDEN'S QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?
A I KNOW THEY WERE TAKEN ON THE 13TH.
Q NO.
MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU -- IS IT IMPORTANT FOR
YOU TO KNOW WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN BY PHOTOGRAPHERS OR
CRIMINALISTS?
A THE EXACT TIME?
Q YES.
A NO.
Q IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE APPROXIMATE TIME?
A I KNOW THEY WERE TAKEN ON THE -- ON THE 13TH OF
JUNE. THE TIME ITSELF, THAT'S -- THAT'S A RECORDATION OF
EVIDENCE THAT'S DISCOVERED. THE TIME IS -- ON THE
PHOTOGRAPH TO ME IS NOT IMPORTANT.
Q LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE MYSELF MORE CLEAR
BECAUSE I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT COMMUNICATING THIS THOUGHT TO YOU
OR THIS QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU GENERICALLY, NOT
SPECIFICALLY -- AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL FOR A LEAD
INVESTIGATOR IN A CASE, IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW
WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN FOR WHICH YOU ARE NOT PRESENT?
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO, CAN'T YOU?
A YES.
Q IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW.
AND IS THERE SUCH A THING IN YOUR PRACTICE
KNOWN AS A PHOTO LOG?
A I THINK THAT'S A RECORDATION OF THE NUMBER OF
PHOTOS, YES.
Q IS THERE ALSO SOMETHING IN YOUR PRACTICE KNOWN
AS RECORDING WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN SO SOMEBODY CAN
REFER TO A PICTURE AND SAY THIS WAS TAKEN AT A CERTAIN DAY,
AT A CERTAIN TIME, AT A CERTAIN PLACE?
A I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
Q AND YOU'VE NEVER USED THAT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?
A NOT TIME, NO.
Q NO INVESTIGATORS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN LAPD ARE
SUPPOSED TO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS DONE IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN
TELL WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN?
A WELL, I KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN.
Q NO. I DIDN'T ASK YOU WHEN THIS PIC -- I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT THIS PICTURE, OKAY? WE ARE JUST TALKING
ABOUT PICTURES IN GENERAL.
ALL RIGHT?
A THAT'S RECORDED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Q AND DOES HE GIVE YOU A LIST SO YOU CAN TELL
WHEN THE PICTURES ARE TAKEN? THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
A YES, BUT NOT TO TIME. I'M NOT AWARE OF TIME.
Q OKAY.
SO HE TELLS YOU WHAT DAY THEY WERE TAKEN, BUT
NOT WHAT TIME THEY WERE TAKEN?
A THE DATE AND THE LOCATION, YES.
Q BUT NOT THE TIME. SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
DAY OR NIGHT?
A WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE
PHOTOGRAPH.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE PUT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS UP ON THE
ELMO, PLEASE?
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT.
YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT MR. DARDEN SHOWED
YOU, WHICH IS IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER; IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU'VE TOLD US THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH
AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH I BELIEVE AFTER THE
EXECUTION OR WHEN THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS RETURNED TO THE
LOCATION, YES.
Q YOU BELIEVE, BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE?
A NO, I'M NOT POSITIVE. I WASN'T THERE, BUT I
BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BROUGHT BACK.
Q AND YOU HAVE NO NOTES OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO TELL WHEN THAT
PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, DO YOU?
A NOT THE TIME, NO.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I WANT YOU TO LOOK IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND
CORNER. THAT'S A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN BY YOUR
PHOTOGRAPHER; IS IT NOT?
A YES.
Q WHEN WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?
A IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE 13TH ALSO.
Q WAS THAT TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME?
A I -- I WOULD SAY THAT -- THAT THAT IS AN
OVERALL AND THEN THE -- THE TWO FOLLOW-UP PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
DONE PROBABLY AT THE SAME TIME, YES. THAT'S SHOWING A --
AN OVERALL OF THE ROOM.
Q I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION IF I MIGHT NOW
TO -- LET ME JUST DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO IT -- TO THE
PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS SHOWN BY MR. DARDEN, THE UPPER
RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
DO YOU SEE THE FOOT OF THE BED IN THAT
PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU SEE ANY STRAPS HANGING OVER THE FOOT
OF THE BED?
A NO.
Q NOW I WANT TO DIRECT YOU TO THE OTHER TWO
PHOTOGRAPHS, THE ONE IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND SIDE.
DO YOU SEE THE STRAPS THERE?
A IT WOULD APPEAR IT'S HANGING OVER, YES.
Q HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
A I DON'T KNOW. I WASN'T THERE.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DISTURBING A
CRIME SCENE?
A IT'S -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW THE REASON IT
WAS MOVED, BUT DISTURBING A CRIME SCENE? I -- IT WAS
OBVIOUSLY MOVED FOR SOME REASON. I DON'T KNOW WHY.
Q SHOULD THE PHOTOGRAPHER MOVE THOSE?
A NO, HE SHOULDN'T.
Q HAVE YOU NOTICED THIS BEFORE?
A YES, I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.
Q AND HAVE YOU MADE INQUIRY AS TO WHY IT WAS
MOVED?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.
Q WHY NOT?
A I HAVEN'T.
Q WELL, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T, BUT WHY HAVEN'T YOU?
A I JUST HAVEN'T. I -- I DIDN'T SEE ANY NEED TO.
Q I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO THE
CARPET THAT THE SOCKS ARE SEATED OR LYING ON. THAT'S A --
THE CARPET IN THE ROOM IS A LITTLE BIT LIGHTER THAN IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH; IS IT NOT?
A THAN WHICH PHOTOGRAPH? IT'S -- IT'S DIFFERENT
SHADES IN ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE COLOR OF THE PHOTO -- OF
THE CARPET AS YOU REMEMBER IT, THE --
A I REMEMBER IT AS A LIGHT GRAY.
Q AND DID YOU FIND ANY BLOODSTAINS ON THAT
CARPET?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TAKE THAT CARPET FOR EVIDENCE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EXAMINE THAT CARPET FOR FOOTWEAR
IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q WHAT ABOUT THE CARPET IN THE ROOM? WHAT COLOR
IS THAT?
A I THINK THAT'S WHAT I DESCRIBED. I RECALL IT
AS EITHER A LIGHT TAN OR LIGHT GRAY.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE THROW CARPET THAT THE SOCKS
ARE ON THAT ARE ON TOP OF THE CARPET IN THE ROOM?
A THAT'S -- THAT APPEARS TO BE TWO TONE, MAYBE
BROWN AND LIGHT TAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q WAS THERE ANY BLOOD ON THAT CARPET?
A I DON'T RECALL ANY BEING THERE, NO.
Q WAS THAT CARPET SEIZED?
A NO.
Q WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO PRESERVE THAT
CARPET FOR FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?
A NO.
Q THE SOCKS THAT WERE THERE, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT
WHEN THOSE SOCKS WERE RECOVERED ON THE 13TH, THAT THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR
HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON THE 13TH?
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES, ON THOSE SOCKS.
MR. DARDEN: ALSO ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE REPORTS
IN THIS CASE REGARDING THOSE SOCKS?
A YES.
Q WHAT REPORTS HAVE YOU REVIEWED?
A I SAW THE SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ON THEM.
Q AND HAVE YOU SEEN THE FIELD NOTES THAT WERE
DONE BY MR. FUNG AT YOUR DIRECTION ON THE 13TH?
A I'VE SEEN THEM IN THE PAST, YES.
Q WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY TO LOOK AT THEM
AGAIN?
A YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE THOSE THE FIELD NOTES
YOU'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE?
A YES, I'VE SEEN THESE.
Q IN REVIEWING THAT, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR
MEMORY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY BLOOD WAS OBSERVED ON THOSE
SOCKS ON THE 13TH?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON THIS,
PLEASE?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)
THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR.
MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THIS WAS BROUGHT OUT ON DIRECT
TESTIMONY. HE HAS TESTIFIED THEY RECOVERED THE BLOODY
SOCKS ON THE 13TH.
THE PEOPLE ARE WELL AWARE -- MISS CLARK IS
LAUGHING. MAYBE I SHOULD WAIT UNTIL SHE COMPOSES HERSELF.
MS. CLARK: I'M VERY WELL COMPOSED. MR. SHAPIRO, I
THINK YOU OUGHT TO READ THE EVIDENCE CODE, LEARN HOW TO
IMPEACH A WITNESS.
MR. SHAPIRO: BUT ON THE --
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I THOUGHT WE AGREED
THESE GRATUITOUS SHOTS WERE GOING TO BE VERBOTEN FROM THIS
POINT ON.
MR. SHAPIRO: ON THE 13TH, THERE WAS PHENO TESTING
DONE ON 13 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THAT BEDROOM, BATHROOM AREA
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SOCKS. MICHELLE KESTLER'S
HANDWRITTEN NOTE INDICATES THAT SHE EXAMINED THOSE SOCKS ON
THE 29TH OF JUNE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON
THOSE SOCKS.
THEY WERE SENT OUT TO THE LABORATORY AND IT WAS
NOT UNTIL PHENO, PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD WAS RUN. I
THINK THIS DIRECTLY IMPEACHES THIS WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: LET ME CHECK MY NOTES.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: I DON'T RECALL HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE SAID
HE SAW BLOOD ON THE SOCKS IN THE BEDROOM.
MR. SHAPIRO: NO. HE SAID BLOODY -- MR. DARDEN -- MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT MR. DARDEN ASKED, "YOU SAID YOU
RECOVERED BLOODY CLOTHING AT THE HOUSE; IS THAT TRUE?"
HE SAID, "YES."
"WHAT BLOODY CLOTHING DID YOU RECOVER?"
"I RECOVERED BLOODY SOCKS. THEY WERE SENT
OUT."
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S TRUE. THAT WAS -- MR. SHAPIRO
ASKED THAT QUESTION ON DIRECT. I'M SORRY -- ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION; DID HE RECOVER ANY BLOODY CLOTHING.
HOWEVER, WHAT MR. SHAPIRO HAS DONE IS, HE HAS
GIVEN THE WITNESS A REPORT WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE, AND IN
THAT REPORT, THE CRIMINALIST, MICHELLE KESTLER, SAYS
THERE'S OBVIOUS BLOOD ON THE SOCK BASED ON HER VISUAL
INSPECTION OF IT. I CAN GO GET MORE REPORTS WITH DNA AND
OTHER THINGS THAT'S GOING TO INDICATE THERE'S BLOOD ON THE
SOCK WHEN IT IS FINALLY TESTED SCIENTIFICALLY.
OKAY. THIS IS JUST IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT FOR
THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS.
THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.
MR. SHAPIRO: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT --
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. SHAPIRO: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 13TH. AND ON
THE 13TH, THE QUESTION WAS, WAS THERE ANY BLOOD.
OUR THEORY IS THAT BLOOD IS NOT THERE ON THE
13TH BECAUSE THE PEOPLE KNOW IT WASN'T THERE ON THE 13TH.
IT WASN'T THERE. IT WAS EXAMINED BY MISS MICHELLE KESTLER
ALMOST A MONTH LATER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION UNDER 352
BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE US WAY INTO MANY AREAS.
MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE ONE OTHER WAY I WOULD LIKE TO
APPROACH IT THEN AND ASK HIM IF ANYBODY REPORTED TO HIM ON
THE 13TH THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE SOCKS.
MR. DARDEN: THAT'S HEARSAY AND BEYOND -- THERE'S NO
ONE THAT WAS COMPETENT TO LOOK AT A BLACK PAIR OF SOCKS AND
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS BLOOD. THIS IS ALL BASED
ON --
THE COURT: I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION, MR.
SHAPIRO, BECAUSE CAN YOU GET THAT INFORMATION THROUGH THE
EXPERT.
MR. SHAPIRO: BUT THIS STAYS OUT HERE SO LONG UNTIL
WE GET TO THAT, JUDGE, IT'S REALLY MISLEADING, REALLY
TOTALLY UNFAIR.
MR. DARDEN: YOU ASKED THE QUESTION.
MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN ASK THE QUESTION.
MR. DARDEN: NO. YOU ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S TOTALLY IMPROPER TO MAKE THE JURY
HAVE THIS IMPRESSION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. COCHRAN: OVERRULED?
THE COURT: NO. OBJECTION SUSTAINED. THAT ARGUMENT
IS OVERRULED.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU DIRECTED THE CHEMIST -- I
AM SORRY.
YOU DIRECTED THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, TO DO
CERTAIN TESTS FOR BLOOD ON THE 13TH; DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND MANY ITEMS WERE TESTED FOR BLOOD; WERE THEY
NOT?
A YES.
Q IN FACT, 13 ITEMS THAT YOU HAD INTEREST IN WERE
TESTED FOR BLOOD AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?
A NO, I -- NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID MR. FUNG EVER REPORT TO YOU SEEING ANY
BLOOD ON THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU ORDER MR. FUNG TO
PHENO TEST THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q ISN'T IT TRUE THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM THAT WAS
RECOVERED ON THE 13TH FROM THE BEDROOM AREA THAT WAS NOT
PHENO TESTED?
MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
IF YOU KNOW.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW THAT.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU FIND ANY BLOOD ON THE
STEPS LEADING UP TO MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM?
A NO, SIR.
Q DID YOU PRESERVE THAT AREA OF THE HOUSE FOR
FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?
A NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: JUST ONE OR TWO BRIEF QUESTIONS, YOUR
HONOR.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DETECTIVE, WITH REGARD TO THE RUGS AND THE
CARPETING AND OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU LEFT AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU
LEFT THOSE IN THE DEFENDANT'S CUSTODY; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
SO THE RUG WE SAW DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS
IS STILL THERE?
A SHOULD BE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, MR. SHAPIRO JUST SHOWED YOU THREE
DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN DURING THE
SEARCH; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q IS IT COMMON TO MOVE THINGS WHEN POLICE
OFFICERS ARE IN THE CON -- ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING
A SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: YES, IT'S COMMON TO MOVE THINGS. YOU
NEED TO MOVE THINGS TO SEARCH.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: SO THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
EXPRESSION AS TO WHY THE STRAPS --
THE COURT: THAT'S LEADING.
MR. DARDEN: IN THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR, NOTHING
FURTHER.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
ON THAT ISSUE, MR. SHAPIRO?
MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP
DOWN, SIR.
THANK YOU.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: NEXT WITNESS.
MR. DARDEN: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE.
(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE
BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)
THE COURT: LET'S SEE THE PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE.
MR. DARDEN: WE SEE HIM RIGHT THERE, YOUR HONOR.
DETECTIVE LANGE BRIEFLY.
THE COURT: YOU'RE GOING TO RECALL DETECTIVE LANGE?
MR. DARDEN: WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE, WOULD YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
TOM LANGE, (RECALLED)
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, RESUMED THE STAND AND
TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE.
THE WITNESS: AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE
STILL UNDER OATH, HAVING NOT BEEN RELEASED AS A WITNESS YET
IN THIS MATTER.
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, BRIEFLY.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU TESTIFIED ALREADY I
BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE SHOWN THE GLOVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
FOUND ON THE SOUTH WALKWAY?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND SOMETIME AFTER THAT, ON JUNE 13, DID YOU
CHECK ANY DOORS LEADING OUT TO THE SOUTH WALKWAY?
A YES. SUBSEQUENT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWING
ME THE GLOVE, I CHECKED TWO DOORS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
RESIDENCE, ONE THAT I BELIEVE WENT INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM
AREA OF THE RESIDENCE AND A SECOND DOOR THAT APPEARED TO GO
INTO THE GARAGE.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU CHECKED THOSE DOORS,
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A I CHECKED THEM TO SEE IF WHETHER OR NOT THEY
WERE LOCKED, AND THEY BOTH WERE LOCKED.
Q AND DID YOU WRITE ANY REPORT TO THAT EFFECT?
A NO.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ANY RECROSS AS -- ANY CROSS
AS TO THAT ITEM?
MR. COCHRAN: YES.
MAY I HAVE THAT -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE
POSTER PUT UP DEPICTING THE DOOR.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, ARE YOU GOING TO ASSIST US
HERE?
MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE.
A GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q WOULD YOU MIND STEPPING DOWN AND SHOWING US
WHERE THIS DOOR INTO THE GARAGE IS LOCATED? AND IF YOU CAN
MARK THAT BY USING ONE OF THESE ARROWS IF YOU WOULD BE SO
KIND.
A SEEMS TO ME IT WAS RIGHT IN THIS GENERAL AREA
HERE (INDICATING).
Q GOING INTO THE GARAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S JUST YOUR INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION NOW
MONTHS LATER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE NO REPORTS TO REFRESH YOUR
RECOLLECTION, DO YOU?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR AND WHILE YOU'RE STANDING
HERE, WITH REGARD TO YOUR CHECKING THESE DOORS, AT WHAT
TIME OF DAY ON JUNE 13TH DID THIS TAKE PLACE?
A IT WAS JUST SUBSEQUENT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN
POINTING OUT THE GLOVE. SO IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:25 IN
THE MORNING I BELIEVE GIVE OR TAKE A FEW MINUTES.
Q ON THE 13TH?
A YES.
Q AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU TESTIFIED THESE
DOORS WERE LOCKED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, DO THEY HAVE A KEY WHICH WOULD
ACTIVATE THOSE DOORS?
A I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY, BUT I BELIEVE THE
KNOBS WERE SMOOTH. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING IN THERE,
AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DEADBOLT LOCK, BUT
I'M NOT CERTAIN.
Q DID YOU EVER --
YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT.
DID YOU EVER GO AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
GARAGE, INSIDE THE GARAGE AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD
UNLOCK THAT DOOR FROM THE INSIDE?
A THE GARAGE DOOR? NO, I DIDN'T.
Q DID YOU EVER GO INSIDE THE RESIDENCE ON THAT
MORNING AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD OPEN THE DOOR INTO
THE SIDE -- THE SECOND DOOR AND COME OUTSIDE?
A I DID CHECK THAT DOOR IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM, AND
AGAIN, I BELIEVE IT WAS AN INSIDE DEADBOLT LOCK, BUT I'M
NOT CERTAIN.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOW THAT EXISTED
AND HOW IT APPEARED AT THAT TIME?
A I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
WERE TAKEN OF THAT AREA. I DIDN'T DIRECT ANY.
Q AND YOU'VE NOT SEEN ANY, HAVE YOU?
A THERE MAY NOT BE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS PRESENTLY THAT
THERE ARE TWO DOORS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE
WHICH YOU SAW THAT MORNING, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU COULD NOT GAIN ENTRY INTO THOSE DOORS; IS
THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND AS WE SIT HERE NOW, YOU CAN'T TELL US
WHETHER OR NOT A KEY MIGHT HAVE ACTIVATED EITHER ONE OF
THOSE TWO DOORS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A AGAIN, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE KNOBS WERE
SMOOTH FACED, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS A DEADBOLT IN AT
LEAST THE UTILITY ROOM DOOR. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT A KEY
COULD HAVE ACTIVATED THAT DOOR, YES.
Q THE -- THE SECOND DOOR, THE ONE INTO THE MAID
-- INTO THE WASHING ROOM THERE, THE LAUNDRY ROOM?
A YES. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT CERTAIN.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU'RE NOT CLEAR ON THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q DETECTIVE LANGE, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A
PHOTOGRAPH AND SEE IF THIS WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION
REGARDING THE --
MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. DARDEN: FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS PHOTOGRAPH 148.
HE'S LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS 146 AND 147 AS
WELL, YOUR HONOR. THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPH NUMBERS AND NOT
EVIDENCE ITEM NUMBERS.
THE WITNESS: YES. IT APPEARS TO BE THE INSIDE OF
THE ROCKINGHAM GARAGE AND THERE IS THE DOOR PICTURED THERE,
BUT I DO NOT RECALL PHYSICALLY CHECKING IT.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: PHYSICALLY CHECKING WHAT?
A THE DOOR.
Q DID YOU GO INSIDE THE GARAGE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THE SIDE
GARAGE DOOR?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.
LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF ITEMS STACKED
IN THERE, YES.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
THE SAME ITEMS DEPICTED IN PHOTOGRAPH 148?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION AS LEADING AND
SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: THE ITEMS THAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED, DO YOU SEE THOSE PHOTO -- THOSE ITEMS DEPICTED
IN ANY OF THE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS I JUST SHOWED YOU TO
REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS THERE. THAT IS MY
RECOLLECTION. AS TO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS, I DON'T RECALL,
BUT I DO RECALL IT BEING SIMILAR TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH AT THAT
DATE, YES.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I MARK PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 148
PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER?
THE COURT: 128.
(PEO'S 128 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
MR. DARDEN: AND MAY I PLACE THAT PHOTOGRAPH ON THE
ELMO?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE HE DOES THAT, MAY I
SEE THE PHOTO?
THE COURT: IT'S HIS -- THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S TRUE.
HIS CLIENT NEEDS TO SEE IT.
MR. COCHRAN: TOO BAD I COULDN'T BRING HIM OVER
THERE WITH ME.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: JUST SO THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
JURY KNOW, IT'S JUST A COMMON COURTESY TO SHOW THE EXHIBITS
TO OPPOSING COUNSEL BEFORE YOU SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS OR
JURY SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S A QUESTION
REGARDING THE DATE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. MAY WE APPROACH
ON THE RECORD FOR A MOMENT?
THE COURT: YOU WANT TO TAKE THE WITNESS ON VOIR DIRE
AS TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
MR. COCHRAN: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO, IF I MIGHT.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. COCHRAN:
Q DETECTIVE LANGE, THE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH
HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO YOU WHO ARE NUMBERED D.A. PHOTO NUMBERS
146, 147 AND 148, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT DATE THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN ON?
A NO, I CAN'T.
Q AND --
A SEEMS TO ME THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON THE
13TH THOUGH OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
Q I MISSED THAT LAST ANSWER. I'M SORRY.
A SEEMS TO ME THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON THE
13TH OF JUNE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A DATE ON THAT
THOUGH.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THESE PARTICULAR
PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH?
A NO. LOOKING AT THOSE, I DON'T. I WOULD HAVE
TO LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER.
Q IF I WERE TO TELL YOU THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
TAKEN IN JULY, WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A IT'S POSSIBLE.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. SIMPSON'S
SON JASON SEATED IN THE FRONT ROW THERE HAD MOVED INTO THE
RESIDENCE BY THAT TIME AND MOVED THINGS INTO THE GARAGE BY
JULY OF 1993, SIR?
THE COURT: WELL, I ALLOWED YOU TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR
DIRE AS TO THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHS SINCE IT'S
NOT ESTABLISHED AT THIS POINT.
MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK THIS GOES TO FOUNDATIONAL
QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
IN THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS ON JUNE 13TH. THAT'S THE
QUESTION.
THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING BEYOND WHAT I
NEED TO KNOW.
MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. VERY WELL.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO LODGE AN OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR,
TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS AT THIS POINT REGARDING FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: NOTED.
MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: MAY WE PLACE THEM ON THE -- MAY WE
DISPLAY THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: I'VE GOT A FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM AT THIS
POINT.
MR. DARDEN: THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED -- WELL, WOULD
YOU LIKE ME TO ARGUE THE ISSUE FROM HERE?
LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
THE COURT: PLEASE.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. DARDEN:
Q IS THIS THE WAY YOU REMEMBER THE GARAGE ON JUNE
13, DETECTIVE?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.
LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE THE QUESTION. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY
GOT THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER THOUGH.
MR. DARDEN: YEAH.
MR. COCHRAN: IT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.
THE COURT: WELL, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK YOU NEED MORE FOUNDATION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON JUNE
13, DETECTIVE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU GO INSIDE THE GARAGE?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU HAVE SOME RECALL AS TO THE ITEMS YOU
SAW IN FRONT OF THE SIDE GARAGE DOOR?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DO RECALL ITEMS IN FRONT OF THE DOOR.
AGAIN, AS TO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS, I DO NOT HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY.
WELL, DO THESE APPEAR TO BE THE SAME ITEMS?
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T HAVE
AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: IT'S VERY POSSIBLE.
Q BY MR. DARDEN: AND HAVING LOOKED AT THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS, DO THEY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHICH
ITEMS YOU SAW IN FRONT OF THE SIDE GARAGE DOOR?
A I DO RECALL VARIOUS ITEMS. THEY DO LOOK
FAMILIAR, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION
IN FRONT OF THE DOOR.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. HOWEVER,
YOU ARE STILL SUBJECT TO RECALL.
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WITNESS.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
PEOPLE CALL MR. KAELIN, BRIAN KAELIN.
THE COURT: IS HE AVAILABLE?
MS. CLARK: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT TO SHOW SOME BOARDS
TO DEFENSE BEFORE MR. KAELIN TAKES THE WITNESS STAND?
THE COURT: A BOARD?
MS. CLARK: PARDON?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY.
MS. CLARK: BOARDS.
THE COURT: BOARDS?
MS. CLARK: PLURAL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
LET ME ASK THE JURORS THEN TO STEP BACK INTO
THE JURY ROOM BRIEFLY. IT SHOULD ONLY BE ABOUT FIVE
MINUTES JUST TO LOOK AT SOME EXHIBITS. THEN WE'LL START
WITH THE WITNESS.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE
SEATED, PLEASE.
MISS CLARK, YOU HAD SOME ITEMS YOU WANTED TO
SHOW --
MR. SHAPIRO, WHO'S GOING TO BE HANDLING THIS
NEXT WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE?
MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, YOU WANT TO SHOW THESE BOARDS TO
COUNSEL?
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.
THE COURT: IS THAT YES?
MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. YES, YOUR HONOR.
IT STARTED WITH THE FREEWAY, THIS MORNING AND
--
THE COURT: WENT DOWNHILL.
MS. CLARK: WENT DOWNHILL, ABSOLUTELY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, ARE WE READY TO PROCEED?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE YOUR STAFF
RECAPTURE THOSE EXHIBITS AND LET'S PROCEED.
LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE, DEPUTY MAGNERA.
(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)
THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE
SEATED.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
PEOPLE CALL MR. KAELIN.
BRIAN KATO KAELIN,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED
AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU
MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL
BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO
HELP YOU GOD?
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND
AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE
RECORD.
THE COURT: MR. KAELIN, WHY DON'T YOU PULL THE
MICROPHONE CLOSE TO YOU THERE. THANK YOU.
MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I'M SORRY. FORGOT TO ASK HIM TO STATE
AND SPELL HIS NAME.
THE WITNESS: BRIAN KATO KAELIN, B-R-I-A-N K-A-T-O
K-A-E-L-I-N.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CLARK:
Q MR. KAELIN, IS KATO YOUR MIDDLE NAME?
A NICKNAME.
Q IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE CALL YOU INSTEAD OF BRIAN?
A YES.
Q YOU A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS TODAY?
A FEEL GREAT. LITTLE NERVOUS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
MR. KAELIN, DID YOU KNOW SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BACK IN 1992?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, HOW YOU MET HER?
A IN ASPEN, COLORADO.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE EVENT?
A IT WAS LIKE A CHRISTMAS BREAK AND I WENT WITH
A BUDDY, AND WE MET.
Q AND WHAT MONTH WAS THAT, IF YOU RECALL?
A DECEMBER.
Q WHO WAS THE BUDDY YOU WERE WITH WHEN YOU MET
NICOLE BROWN?
A GRANT CRAMER.
Q DID YOU GET INVOLVED IN SOME KIND OF ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIP WITH HER?
A DID I?
Q DID YOU?
A NO.
Q DID YOU BECOME FRIENDS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE HER AGAIN AFTER
YOU MET HER IN DECEMBER OF 1992 IN ASPEN?
A YES. I SAW HER AGAIN IN ASPEN.
Q IN ASPEN?
A OH, THROUGHOUT THE TRIP, YES, AND THEN AFTER
THAT ALSO.
Q WELL, HOW LONG WAS THAT TRIP IN ASPEN IN
DECEMBER OF '92?
A I THINK SEVEN DAYS ABOUT. IT'S -- LIKE A WEEK.
Q AND DID YOU ALL SPEND THAT WHOLE WEEK TOGETHER?
A OFF AND ON, YES.
Q AND THAT -- WHEN I SAY "YOU ALL," WHO WAS ALL
-- ALL OF YOU TOGETHER?
A I -- QUITE A FEW PEOPLE. BUT BASICALLY IT WAS
MYSELF, GRANT CRAMER, FAYE RESNICK WAS THERE AND NICOLE AND
OTHER PEOPLE THAT I -- THE NAMES I CAN'T THINK OF THEM
RIGHT NOW. BUT OTHER PEOPLE.
Q NOW, AT THAT TIME, SIR, WAS NICOLE BROWN
ALREADY DIVORCED?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU CAN ANSWER.
A OH, I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q AFTER SEEING HER AND MEETING HER IN ASPEN IN
DECEMBER OF 1992, AFTER THAT TRIP, WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME
YOU SAW NICOLE BROWN?
A I SAW HER PRETTY MUCH IN JANUARY AT HER HOUSE
THAT WAS ON GRETNA GREEN.
Q JANUARY OF '93 IS THAT?
A YES.
Q AND IS THAT IN BRENTWOOD, THAT HOUSE ON GRETNA
GREEN?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT -- WELL, WHAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO GO TO
HER HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD?
A UMM, THERE WAS A PARTY AND I WAS INVITED TO GO.
Q WHEN YOU SAW HER AT -- YOU SAW HER AT THAT
PARTY I TAKE IT?
A YES.
Q AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US THE LAYOUT OF THAT
HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN?
A OKAY.
UMM, WANT ME TO START FROM THE DRIVEWAY?
Q ACTUALLY -- WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT
SPECIFIC.
WAS THERE A MAIN HOUSE?
A OKAY.
YOU WALK INTO A KIND OF FOYER, THEN WOULD BE
LIKE A DEN AND LIVING ROOM TO THE RIGHT, KITCHEN AND, YOU
KNOW, OTHER ROOMS AND UPSTAIRS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU HAVE A -- SO YOU HAVE A FRONT DOOR TO
THAT HOUSE, DO YOU?
A YES.
Q DOES IT FACE THE STREET?
A YES.
Q IS THERE A PICTURE WINDOW THAT FACES THE STREET
ON THAT HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT PICTURE WINDOW LOOKS INTO WHAT ROOM?
A THE LIVING ROOM.
Q IS THERE A REAR ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE?
A AT THE SIDE AND A REAR, TWO REAR THAT WOULD GO
TO THE KITCHEN AND ONE GOES TO A DEN AND ONE GOES TO A
BEDROOM IN THE BACK.
Q IN THE BACK?
A RIGHT.
Q SO ARE THERE THREE ENTRANCES IN -- BESIDES THE
FRONT DOOR, ARE THERE THREE OTHER ENTRANCES TO THE HOUSE?
A FOUR.
Q FOUR.
A THERE'S A SIDE DOOR IN THE FRONT THAT GOES TO
THE KITCHEN.
Q OKAY.
A YOU WALK TO THE BACK, THEN YOU HAVE THE BACK
DOORS TO THE KITCHEN, THEN YOU HAVE THE BACK DOUBLE DOORS
TO THE DEN AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BEDROOM THAT HAS DOUBLE
DOORS ALSO.
Q OKAY.
WHAT KIND OF DOORS ARE THOSE?
A LIKE FRENCH DOORS. THEY'RE DOUBLE DOORS.
Q ALL OF THE ONES IN THE BACK THERE ARE --
A NO. OH, YES.
Q ARE THEY?
A EXCEPT THE ONE IN THE FRONT KITCHEN. IT'S A
SINGLE DOOR.
Q WELL, YOU MEAN THE SIDE DOOR TO THE KITCHEN,
THAT'S A SINGLE DOOR?
A SIDE DOOR.
Q IS THAT YES?
A YES. THAT'S YES.
Q OKAY.
AND THEN DO YOU HAVE -- THE DOUBLE DOORS THAT
YOU REFERRED TO IN THE BACK THAT LEAD INTO THE KITCHEN, THE
DEN AND A BEDROOM, ARE THOSE ALL FRENCH DOORS?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IS THERE ANY YARD AREA, THE PROPERTY THAT
BELONGS TO THE HOUSE THAT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE HOUSE?
A A POOL, SMALL YARD AND THEN THERE'S A GUEST
HOUSE.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE PROPERTY -- WHEN YOU
WENT TO THAT GRETNA GREEN HOUSE, TO THE PARTY GIVEN BY
NICOLE BROWN, DID YOU NOTICE THAT GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR
OF THE PROPERTY?
A YES, I DID.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER YOU HAD A DISCUSSION
WITH HER ABOUT THAT GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR?
A I DID. I --
Q WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF IT, OF YOUR DISCUSSION?
A I SAID, "NICOLE, WHO LIVES BACK THERE," AND SHE
SAID, "NO ONE."
AND THEN I SAID, "COULD I," AND SHE SAYS,
"WELL, IF YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO CLEAN IT OUT." AND I SAID,
"GREAT."
Q WAS IT NOT CLEAN AT THAT TIME?
A THERE WAS FURNITURE IN THERE, TREADMILL AND A
FEW OTHER THINGS, AND THAT WAS IT.
Q SO DID YOU MAKE SOME AGREEMENT WITH HER
CONCERNING PAYING RENT AND LIVING THERE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR AGREEMENT?
A IT WOULD BE 450 TO 500 FOR RENT AND THEN TAKE
CARE OF THE KIDS, NICOLE WOULD TAKE THINGS OFF AND THAT WAS
IT.
Q WHEN YOU SAY "TAKE THINGS OFF," IF YOU TOOK
CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WOULD YOUR RENT BE REDUCED?
A YES.
Q AND YOUR AGREEMENT WAS TO PAY HER HOW MUCH PER
MONTH?
A IT WAS BETWEEN 450 TO 500.
Q DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH YOU TOOK CARE OF THE
CHILDREN?
A YES.
Q AND BY THE CHILDREN, WHO ARE WE REFERRING TO?
A SIDNEY AND JUSTIN.
Q AND WHO LIVED IN THE MAIN HOUSE ON GRETNA
GREEN?
A NICOLE AND SIDNEY AND JUSTIN.
Q THAT'S IT?
A YES.
Q SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THE GRETNA GREEN
HOUSE?
A IT WAS JANUARY -- KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF
JANUARY I THINK PRETTY -- RIGHT AROUND THERE.
Q OF 1993?
A OF '93.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DURING THAT TIME, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO
MEET MR. SIMPSON?
A NOT IN JANUARY. I THINK IT WAS IN FEBRUARY.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE.
Q SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY OF 1993?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN I SAY MR. SIMPSON, IS THAT SOMEONE YOU
SEE IN COURT TODAY, SIR?
A IT'S O.J.
Q POINT HIM OUT, PLEASE.
A THERE (INDICATING).
THE COURT: INDICATING THE DEFENDANT.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU MET HIM?
WHAT WAS THE OCCASION?
A OH, HE CAME BY.
Q TO THE HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN?
A TO THE HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN.
Q HOW LONG DID YOU LIVE AT THAT HOUSE ON GRETNA
GREEN?
A UNTIL JANUARY OF '94, THE BEGINNING OF
JANUARY. RIGHT THEN I LEFT.
Q CAN YOU TELL US EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT
HAPPENED TO CAUSE YOU TO MOVE OUT IN JANUARY OF 1994?
A OKAY.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO BUNDY
WITH NICOLE AND --
Q OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, SIR. I AM
SORRY.
A OKAY.
Q DID -- DID NICOLE BROWN DECIDE TO MOVE OUT OF
GRETNA GREEN IN 1994?
A YES.
Q AND DID SHE FIND ANOTHER LOCATION TO LIVE IN?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE WAS THAT?
A ON BUNDY.
Q DO YOU RECALL THE ADDRESS?
A I THINK 875.
Q DID YOU SEE THE LOCATION?
A YES.
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER
THAT WAS A HOUSE, A FREESTANDING HOUSE OR A TOWN HOUSE OR
A DUPLEX? DO YOU REMEMBER?
A IT WAS A TOWN HOUSE.
Q AND WAS IT A SINGLE UNIT OR MULTIPLE UNITS?
A MULTIPLE UNITS.
Q HOW MANY?
A I THINK FOUR? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER.
Q DID YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE LOCATION?
A YES.
Q AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU CAME TO SEE THAT
LOCATION?
A BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO MOVE THERE.
Q SO YOU WENT TO SEE WHERE YOU'D LIVE?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE STAYED IN THE BUNDY
LOCATION?
A OKAY.
THERE'S A ROOM THAT'S -- GOES KIND OF ITS OWN
SIDE ENTRANCE. IT GOES DOWN AND THERE'S A ROOM THAT'S OFF
TO THE SIDE THAT'S KIND OF -- IT'S IN THE HOUSE, BUT IT'S
TO THE SIDE.
Q IS IT ON THE LOWEST LEVEL?
A YES.
Q AND DOES IT HAVE A WINDOW THAT FACES A WALKWAY?
A THERE'S A WALKWAY. SO -- I DON'T REMEMBER A
WINDOW, BUT THERE PROBABLY WAS.
Q UH-HUH.
IF YOU WERE TO WALK IN THROUGH THE GARAGE AREA,
WOULD YOU HAVE TO GO DOWNSTAIRS TO GO TO THE AREA WHERE YOU
WERE GOING TO LIVE?
A I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I KNOW IT HAD ITS OWN
ENTRANCE THAT WAS PART OF IT, THAT IT HAD AN ENTRANCE AND
I DON'T REMEMBER THE LAYOUT THAT WELL.
Q OKAY.
THE AREA THEN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO LIVE ON
THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE HOUSE, DID IT HAVE ITS OWN
BATHROOM?
A YES.
Q SO -- AND WHAT ELSE DID IT HAVE THAT WOULD BE
PRIVATE JUST FOR YOU?
A CLOSETS, BEDROOM, BATHROOM.
Q THAT WAS IT?
A THAT'S -- YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IT.
Q NOW, WAS THAT LOCATION INSIDE THE HOUSE ITSELF?
A YES.
Q THIS WAS NOT A SEPARATE GUEST UNIT LIKE IT WAS
AT GRETNA GREEN?
A EXACTLY.
Q AND WERE YOU PLANNING TO PAY HER RENT THERE?
A YES.
Q I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, AND
ASK YOU IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE BUILDING PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS
PEOPLE'S 86.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS NOT A FACT IN
DISPUTE. WE WOULD STIPULATE. THE JURY'S BEEN THERE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, DO WE NEED TO -- IS THERE ANY
DISPUTE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
MS. CLARK: NO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE WITNESS
KNOWS IT TOO. I HAVE NOT SHOWN --
Q BY MS. CLARK: HAVE I SHOWN YOU ANY
PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR?
A NO.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE
WOULD STIPULATE THAT HE KNOWS THE LOCATION AND THAT THIS IS
THE LOCATION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE SAME LOCATION.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THIS?
MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
TALKING --
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: I HAVEN'T SHOWN THIS WITNESS ANY
PHOTOGRAPHS.
THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO
NEED TO CHECK SOME CABLE SYSTEMS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MISS CLARK, WHY DON'T YOU JUST PHYSICALLY SHOW
MR. KAELIN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
MS. CLARK: I'LL JUST SHOW HIM THE PHOTOGRAPH.
Q BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH
THAT'S PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 86.
A YES.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S SHOWN THERE?
A THE TOWN HOUSE ON BUNDY.
Q OKAY.
IS THAT THE TOWN HOUSE THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING
THAT YOU WERE GOING TO MOVE INTO WITH NICOLE?
A YES.
Q THANK YOU.
NOW, DID YOU EVER MOVE INTO THAT TOWN HOUSE,
SIR?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I WAS GOING TO MOVE IN AND I MOVED IN AT
O.J.'S.
Q WHY NOT -- WHY DID YOU DO THAT?
A BECAUSE O.J. ASKED ME TO GO TO HIS HOUSE. YOU
MEAN -- IT WAS PART OF THE DEAL. I WENT THERE INSTEAD OF
MOVED IN WITH NICOLE. THERE'S --
Q WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY TO YOU ABOUT MOVING
INTO HIS HOUSE INSTEAD OF NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM OR TOWN
HOUSE?
A I MEAN WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND IT WAS SORT OF
LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO THAT -- NOT TO BE THE SAME
HOUSE, THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY GO THERE, AND O.J. OFFERED ME
HIS PLACE. IT WAS FREE AND HE SAID WHEN -- "YOU CAN STAY
AS LONG AS YOU WANT AND WHEN IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO GO, HE'D
LET ME KNOW."
Q OKAY.
NOW -- SO DID HE INDICATE ANYTHING TO YOU WITH
RESPECT TO WHAT HE THOUGHT OF THE FACT YOU WOULD BE LIVING
IN THE SAME HOUSE WITH NICOLE BROWN?
A WELL, THEY WERE TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT AND
I SAID THAT I UNDERSTOOD. IT WASN'T -- I THOUGHT MAYBE I
SHOULDN'T BE A GUY IN THE HOUSE AND I WOULD GO THERE. KIND
OF LIKE THAT.
Q DID HE THOUGHT -- DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN
SOME WAY THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE
IN THE SAME HOUSE AS HER OR HE DIDN'T LIKE IT?
A WELL, NOT DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT PROBABLY WOULDN'T
BE RIGHT.
Q AND WHY WOULDN'T IT BE RIGHT?
A I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
Q WERE YOU LOVERS?
A NO.
Q JUST FRIENDS?
A FRIENDS.
Q DID YOU TELL THE DEFENDANT THAT?
A HE KNEW WE WERE FRIENDS.
Q BUT HE STILL DIDN'T WANT YOU LIVING IN THAT
HOUSE?
A I -- I GUESS -- I MEAN, I DIDN'T AND I GUESS
NOT.
Q OKAY.
AND SO HE OFFERED TO LET YOU STAY AT HIS HOUSE
ON ROCKINGHAM IS THAT?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL THE ADDRESS ON ROCKINGHAM WHERE
HE LIVED?
A UMM, AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.
Q UH-HUH.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR ARRANGEMENT WITH THE
DEFENDANT CONCERNING HOW -- WHAT KIND OF RENT YOU WOULD BE
PAYING HIM TO STAY AT HIS PLACE ON ROCKINGHAM?
A I OFFERED RENT AND O.J. SAID HE DIDN'T WANT MY
MONEY AND THAT WAS IT.
Q SO HE LET YOU STAY THERE FOR FREE?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU THEN MOVE INTO HIS HOUSE ON
ROCKINGHAM?
A I -- I DID. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE THAT SAME DAY.
I WAS KIND OF LIKE, OH, WE'RE GOING, AND THEN I WENT THERE.
Q AND SO DID YOU PACK UP AND MOVE ALL OF YOUR
THINGS INTO THE -- INTO SOME PLACE, SOME AREA IN
ROCKINGHAM?
A WHAT WAS THAT?
Q DID YOU PACK UP AND MOVE ALL OF YOUR THINGS
OVER TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q WHERE ON ROCKINGHAM DID YOU STAY? WHAT PART OF
THE PROPERTY?
A IT'S A -- UH, IT WAS A GUEST HOUSE BY THE POOL.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU HAVE? YOUR AREA WHERE YOU
LIVED, WHAT WAS YOURS? WHAT PART OF THAT HOUSE WAS YOURS?
A OH, I HAD THE -- A GUEST HOUSE THAT HAD LIKE AN
OFFICE AREA AND A BATHROOM AND THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE -- A
STOVE AND ALL THAT I DIDN'T USE, BUT THERE WAS A KITCHEN
AREA BY THE TENNIS COURTS.
Q SO YOU ACTUALLY -- AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, YOU
WOULD HAVE HAD JUST A BEDROOM AND A BATHROOM; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION -- AND YOU WERE
GOING TO PAY RENT THERE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION; IS THAT
RIGHT?
A YES. YES.
Q HOW MUCH WERE YOU GOING TO PAY NICOLE TO STAY
AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?
A IT'S THE SAME.
Q 450 TO 500?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IS THAT YES?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WENT TO STAY WITH THE DEFENDANT AT
ROCKINGHAM AND YOU HAD YOUR BEDROOM, THE OFFICE, THE
BATHROOM AND ACCESS TO A KITCHEN OUT AT THE POOL HOUSE FOR
FREE.
A YES.
Q WHEN DID YOU MOVE IN THERE ON ROCKINGHAM?
A UH, JANUARY.
Q OF '94?
A OF '94.
Q NOW, WERE YOU AN ASPIRING ACTOR BACK THEN, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND YOU STILL ARE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO YOU
TO STAY WITH THE DEFENDANT AND GET TO KNOW HIM FOR YOUR
ACTING CAREER?
A I DIDN'T THINK THAT. I NEVER ASKED FOR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WAS GETTING RENT FREE, SO I DIDN'T
-- I DIDN'T ASK ANYTHING.
Q UH-HUH.
DID YOU THINK THAT YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM,
YOUR ACQUAINTANCESHIP, ESPECIALLY LIVING ON HIS PROPERTY
MIGHT SEND ACTING ROLES YOUR WAY?
A I DIDN'T THINK THAT. I JUST -- I NEVER ASKED.
I WAS HOPEFULLY GETTING THINGS ON MY OWN. BUT I --
YOU KNOW, IF HE DID, HE'D BRING IT UP ON HIS
OWN. I DON'T THINK WE WERE GOING FOR THE SAME PARTS. I --
I DON'T KNOW.
Q WHAT I'M GETTING AT, SIR, IS THIS.
YOU HOPED IT MIGHT HELP, BUT YOU WEREN'T GOING
TO ASK HIM FOR HELP; IS THAT RIGHT?
A HE COULD HAVE HELPED ME. I MEAN -- IF IT
HAPPENED, IT COULD -- HE WAS SOMEONE THAT COULD HELP ME,
YES.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE A BOARD THAT'S
BEEN SHOWN. I WOULD ASK IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 124?
THE COURT: 129.
MS. CLARK: 29?
THE COURT: YES.
(PEO'S 129 FOR ID = BOARD W/PHOTOS)
Q BY MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN, I'M GOING TO ASK
YOU TO STEP DOWN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BOARD AND BRING
THE POINTER WITH YOU. BRING THE POINTER WITH YOU.
HAVE I EVER SHOWN YOU THIS, SIR? HAVE YOU EVER
SEEN THIS BOARD BEFORE?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT EIGHT,
ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH IT, AND I'LL ASK YOU A FEW
QUESTIONS.
A OKAY. YOU WANT ME TO STAND HERE?
Q OKAY.
FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU TELL US IN GENERAL, DOES
THIS -- WHAT PROPERTY DOES THIS BOARD DEPICT?
A THIS IS THE ROCKINGHAM, 360 ROCKINGHAM.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND CAN YOU TELL US -- DOWN HERE, THERE'S A BOX
THAT'S BEEN CIRCLED IN RED MARKED "KAELIN'S ROOM."
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION SHOWN THERE?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THAT THE LOCATION WHERE YOU WERE
STAYING AT 360 ROCKINGHAM?
A YES, IT IS.
Q NOW, THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE --
THAT HAVE ARROWS TO THAT BOX. SEE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR?
A YES.
MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, I'M -- I APOLOGIZE TO
THE COURT. I SHOULD HAVE LABELED, BUT THE PHOTOGRAPH TO
THE LEFT AS YOU FACE THE DIAGRAM SHOULD BE PEOPLE'S --
SHOULD BE A AND THE PHOTOGRAPH TO THE RIGHT SHOULD BE B.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THAT AFTERWARDS.
MS. CLARK: AND I'LL MARK THAT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
IN PHOTOGRAPH A, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT'S SHOWN
IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A IN A?
Q YES.
A THIS IS THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE ROOM
(INDICATING).
Q THOSE DOORS?
A THESE DOORS (INDICATING). THIS WOULD BE -- HOW
I WOULD GET IN, MY BED. THIS IS THE OFFICE. THIS IS A
DRESSER, T.V.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
NOW, FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE WITNESS SAID
"OFFICE," HE GESTURED TO THE ROOM JUST BEHIND - JUST PAST
THE BED. WHEN HE INDICATED THE FRONT ENTRANCE, HE
INDICATED SHUTTER DOORS THAT'S SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH AND
I THINK THE REST IS SELF-EXPLANATORY.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: IF YOU OPEN THESE SHUTTER DOORS
AND WALK STRAIGHT OUT, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU GO
TO, WHAT AREA?
A OKAY.
THERE'S CEMENT HERE, THREE STEPS THAT -- I
THINK THREE THAT LEAD UP AND YOU WALK STRAIGHT UP, KIND OF
HIT THE POOL, AND LEFT IS THE MAIN HOUSE AND RIGHT WOULD BE
THE OTHER GUEST HOUSE (INDICATING).
Q WITH RESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPH B, SIR, CAN YOU TELL
US WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A THIS SHOT WOULD -- PROBABLY WAS TAKEN LIKE FROM
THE OFFICE SPOT AREA. THE BATHROOM, AIR-CONDITIONER, BED,
SAME BED AND THIS IS LIKE A -- WHERE THE PHONE IS
(INDICATING).
Q NIGHTSTAND?
A NIGHTSTAND.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE WALL ABOVE THAT
NIGHTSTAND?
A ABOVE THE NIGHTSTAND?
Q RIGHT. OR WAS THERE WHEN YOU WERE LIVING
THERE?
A YEAH. A PICTURE. IT WAS RIGHT -- YEAH, RIGHT
ABOUT HERE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE WITNESS SAYS
"RIGHT ABOUT HERE," HE'S REFERRING TO AN AREA JUST OUTSIDE
TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, JUST OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY
OF THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE YELLOW PORTION OF THE DIAGRAM; AND
WHEN HE INDICATED "BATHROOM," HE GESTURED TO THE ROOM IN
THE PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTED PAST THE BED AGAIN WHERE THERE'S A
WHITE CABINET AND A MIRROR VISIBLE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
AND YOU INDICATE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN
FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE OFFICE FACING TOWARD THE BACK
OF THE ROOM?
A THIS PICTURE, YES.
Q THAT'S PHOTOGRAPH B.
AND YOU INDICATED --
MS. CLARK: OH, YEAH.
AND THE AIR CONDITIONER FOR THE RECORD, YOUR
HONOR, IS INDICATED -- I THINK IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY -- ON
THE PHOTOGRAPH, BE RIGHT ABOVE THE LAMP.
THE WITNESS: AND THESE ARE CLOSETS (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS
GESTURED TO TWO DOORS IN THE -- ON THE WALL.
THE COURT: ON THE FAR WALL, YES.
MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, IF YOU COULD TELL US, SIR,
THE ROOM AS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH B, IS THAT THE CONDITION OF
THE ROOM WHEN YOU LIVED THERE? DID IT LOOK LIKE THAT?
A YEAH. THERE'S -- MY DRESSERS AREN'T THERE.
Q WERE THERE DRESSERS THERE WHEN YOU LIVED THERE?
A THIS DRESSER AND THE NIGHTSTAND (INDICATING).
Q UH-HUH.
A THEN I HAD SOME STUFF.
Q AND FOR THE RECORD, WHERE ARE YOU INDICATING
YOU HAD SOME STUFF?
A I HAD MY DRESSER HERE (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS GESTURING
TO -- ON PHOTOGRAPH B, THE WALL THAT WOULD BE JUST TO THE
RIGHT OF THE DOORS.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
AND DID YOU KEEP CLOTHING OR THINGS ON AND IN
THAT DRESSER?
A YES. IN THE CLOSETS.
Q GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT.
MS. CLARK: MAY I SHOW THE REST OF THE JURY THIS
BOARD?
THE COURT: YOU MAY.
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
Q BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY.
MR. KAELIN, I HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS TO
ASK YOU.
CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, TO WHOM THE OTHER UNITS
BELONG BEHIND YOUR GUEST UNIT AS DEPICTED ON THIS DIAGRAM?
A COME DOWN?
Q YEAH.
A OKAY.
Q YEAH. GO AHEAD.
A WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Q YES.
ARE THERE OTHER UNITS IN THAT SAME -- ALONG
THIS SAME CORRIDOR HERE (INDICATING) --
A YES.
Q -- THAT ARE BEHIND YOURS?
A RIGHT.
NEXT TO MINE WAS ARNELLE'S ROOM.
Q DO YOU HAVE A COMMON WALL WITH HER ROOM?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND BEHIND HERS, WAS THERE ANOTHER ROOM?
A NOT BEHIND. IT WAS ON THE SIDE. IT WOULD
CONNECT AND IT WOULD BE -- IT SAYS ARNELLE'S, BUT THAT
WOULD BE THE MAID'S.
Q SO THIS END UNIT THAT SAYS "ARNELLE'S ROOM"
SHOULD ACTUALLY BE MAID'S ROOM?
A UH-HUH. YES.
Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANOTHER ROOM FOR
MAIDS INSIDE THE MAIN RESIDENCE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AS OF -- AS OF JUNE 12TH, 1994, SIR, WHO WAS
LIVING IN THE MAIN MOUSE AND IN THE GUEST UNITS?
A O.J. IN THE MAIN HOUSE, ARNELLE IN ARNELLE'S
ROOM, AND THAT'S MY ROOM (INDICATING), AND GIGI OFF AND ON.
Q GIGI OFF AND ON IN THAT END ROOM THAT'S AT THIS
POINT MARKED AS "ARNELLE'S ROOM"?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU CAN, SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME OUT OF YOUR
ROOM OUT OF THOSE SHUTTER DOORS THAT YOU'VE -- THAT ARE
SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS A AND B --
A YES.
Q -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IS OUTSIDE YOUR DOOR
WHEN YOU STEP OUT?
A MY FIRST STEPS WHEN I --
Q RIGHT.
A IT'S -- FIRST STEPS OUT ARE THE CEMENT AND THEN
I WOULD HAVE TO GO UPSTAIRS TO -- LEFT OR RIGHT. I COULD
WALK TO ARNELLE'S ROOM IF I MADE A RIGHT OUT THE DOORS AND
LEFT -- OR I'D GO UP THE STAIRS AND I'D GO LEFT, I'D GO
INTO THE MAIN HOUSE THROUGH THE BACK DOORS. STRAIGHT
AHEAD, IT WAS THE POOL. THERE'S LIKE A BARBECUE PIT THERE
(INDICATING) AND --
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT IF YOU WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE POOL
AREA.
A OKAY.
Q WHERE WOULD YOU COME OUT?
A SO IF YOU GO STRAIGHT THROUGH, THERE'S A PATH.
I WOULD FOLLOW IT AND I'D GO UP TO THE FRONT YARD
(INDICATING).
Q AND IS THERE A SIDE YARD HERE THAT YOU WOULD
WALK THROUGH (INDICATING)?
A RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).
Q OKAY.
AND IS THIS -- THIS PATH -- IS THAT ACCURATE?
THERE'S A PATH THERE THAT TAKES YOU THROUGH THE YARD
(INDICATING)?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE DOES THAT PATH TAKE YOU TO? WHERE
DOES IT END?
A ENDS -- GOES INTO THE MAIN DRIVEWAY
(INDICATING).
Q OH, OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. HAVE A SEAT, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU INDICATED GIGI -- WHO IS GIGI?
A UH, GIGI WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER.
Q DID SHE LIVE IN ON THE PROPERTY?
A IT WAS -- OFF AND ON. SHE HAD A HUSBAND. I'M
SURE SHE STILL DOES, AND SHE'D GO TO WHERE HE WAS AT, YOU
KNOW, SOMETIMES STAY THERE, SOMETIMES NOT.
Q OKAY.
SO AT TIMES, SHE WOULD SPEND THE NIGHT ON THE
PROPERTY AND OTHER TIMES NOT?
A YES.
Q WAS THERE ANY OTHER MAID THAT LIVED IN THE
PROPERTY?
A AT THAT TIME?
Q YES.
A NO. JUST GIGI.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THAT
IS VAGUE, AS TO WHAT TIME, AT THAT TIME.
MS. CLARK: I STAND CORRECTED. COUNSEL'S RIGHT.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994.
A JUNE THE 12TH WAS GIGI.
Q OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. AT SOME POINT -- DIRECTING YOUR
ATTENTION TO MAY OF 1994, MID TO LATE MAY, SIR, CAN YOU
TELL US WHETHER YOU BEGAN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER PLACE TO
LIVE?
A YES.
Q AND WHY WAS THAT?
A I -- I WAS PERIODICALLY LOOKING FOR PLACES TO
LIVE.
Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT
ABOUT HIS SITUATION WITH NICOLE BROWN?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?
A ABOUT MY LIVING ARRANGEMENT OR --
Q RIGHT. ABOUT YOUR LIVING ARRANGEMENT AND HIS
SITUATION WITH NICOLE.
A UMM, THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS. I'M --
Q IN MID TO LATE, DID THE DEFENDANT ASK YOU TO
START LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE?
A DID HE ASK ME TO LOOK? NO.
Q DID HE INDICATE ANYTHING TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO
HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE?
A THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER.
Q HE TOLD YOU THEY WERE BROKEN UP FOR GOOD?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS MID TO LATE MAY OF '94?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU START LOOKING -- DID YOU DISCUSS
MOVING IN WITH SOMEONE ELSE AROUND THAT SAME TIME?
A I WAS -- JUST MOVING. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF
IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE. I WAS LOOKING AT SOME PLACES AND NOT
LOOKING AND --
Q MR. KAELIN, DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH
GRANT CRAMER, YOUR FRIEND, ABOUT MOVING INTO HIS APARTMENT
WITH HIM MID TO LATE MAY?
A NO. GRANT ASKED ME TO MOVE IN, BUT I WASN'T
GOING TO MOVE IN WITH HIM.
Q YOU WEREN'T GOING TO?
A NO. NO, NOT WITH HIM.
Q WHO WERE YOU GOING TO MOVE IN WITH?
A I WAS LOOKING AT A PLACE ON SAN VICENTE AND 3RD
AND IT WAS A SINGLE.
Q AND DID YOU ACTUALLY MAKE SOME ARRANGEMENTS TO
MOVE THERE?
A YEAH. I DID THE APPLICATION. I KNEW THE
PERSON THAT WAS RENTING IT OUT.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU MADE THAT APPLICATION?
A I THINK IT WAS IN MAY.
Q OKAY.
HAD YOU MADE APPLICATION TO LIVE ANYONE ELSE
BEFORE THAT?
A THERE WAS ANOTHER PLACE THAT WAS OFF ANOTHER
ROAD IN BRENTWOOD THAT WAS PENDING WITH SOMEONE. IT WAS
SOMEONE'S HOUSE AND THERE WAS -- IT WAS MOVING -- SHARING
THE HOUSE WITH THEM.
Q AND WHEN DID YOU MAKE APPLICATION TO LIVE
THERE?
A THAT WAS I THINK ALSO IN MAY.
Q OKAY.
AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO MAY WHEN THE -- AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO MAY, DID YOU MAKE APPLICATION TO MOVE OUT AND
MOVE INTO SOME OTHER LOCATION?
A NOT APPLICATIONS, BUT I WAS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO BE A PAIN THERE.
Q DIDN'T THE DEFENDANT ASK YOU TO COME AND STAY
WITH HIM?
A YES.
Q THEN WERE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE LIVING THERE?
A NO. IT WAS ANOTHER MAID THAT WAS SAYING
THINGS.
Q ANOTHER MAID?
A YES. BEFORE THIS.
Q THAT DIDN'T WANT YOU LIVING THERE?
A WELL, SHE WOULD SAY THINGS. DO YOU WANT TO
KNOW HER NAME?
Q YES.
A MICHELLE.
Q DID YOU HAVE SOME RUN-IN WITH HER?
A NO. SHE WOULD SAY, "O.J. WANTS YOU OUT, BUT I
NEVER BELIEVE HIM. TELL HIM -- YOU SHOULD GO, KATO."
I SAID, "OKAY." AND O.J. WOULD SAY, "I'LL TELL
YOU WHEN TO GO, NOT MICHELLE."
Q SO SHE WAS URGING YOU TO LEAVE?
A SINCE DAY ONE.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHY?
A DO I KNOW WHY?
Q YES.
A I DON'T KNOW. I THINK SHE JUST WANTED THE
HOUSE.
Q WANTED THE HOUSE?
A WELL, I DON'T THINK SHE WANTED SOMEONE NEW
THERE. I DON'T -- I MEAN, I CAN'T ANSWER --
Q DID SHE CLEAN -- I AM SORRY. DID SHE CLEAN
YOUR ROOM?
A YES. SOMETIMES SHE'D COME IN AND JUST -- WOULD
JUST SHOW UP.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK HER TO CLEAN YOUR ROOM?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO JUNE THE 12TH --
A YES.
Q -- CAN YOU TELL US WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE -- JUNE
THE 12TH OF 1994.
CAN YOU TELL US WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE ON THAT
DATE?
A ON JUNE 12TH?
Q YES?
A JUST MYSELF AND O.J.
Q WAS GIGI THERE?
A SHE WAS NOT THERE.
Q HOW ABOUT ARNELLE?
A I DIDN'T SEE ARNELLE.
Q AND ARNELLE, OF COURSE, WE'RE REFERRING TO THE
DEFENDANT'S DAUGHTER?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU FIRST
SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?
A I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE IN THE AFTERNOON ABOUT
2:00, 2:30.
Q AND WHERE WAS IT THAT YOU HAPPENED TO SEE HIM
ON THAT -- AT THAT TIME?
A IT WAS IN THE KITCHEN NOOK AREA.
Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?
A WE TALKED ABOUT HE WENT GOLFING THAT DAY AND
HIS GOLF GAME AND THEN WHAT ELSE HE DID, HOW HE DID AT
GOLF, AND HE PLAYED CARDS AND --
Q DID HE TELL YOU WHETHER HE WON OR LOST?
A IN GOLF OR CARDS?
Q GOLF?
A I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q CARDS?
A I -- I DON'T KNOW IF HE WON OR LOST.
Q OKAY.
DID HE MENTION TO YOU ANY PLANS THAT HE HAD FOR
LATER ON THAT DAY?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A THERE WAS A RECITAL, THE DANCE RECITAL OF
SIDNEY, HIS DAUGHTER WITH NICOLE.
Q AND WHAT TIME DID HE PLAN TO GO TO THAT?
A 5:00 O'CLOCK RECITAL.
Q DID HE TALK TO YOU OR MENTION ANYTHING TO YOU
ABOUT NICOLE DURING THAT CONVERSATION?
A UMM, IT WAS -- THEY WEREN'T TOGETHER.
Q HOW DID THAT COME UP?
A IT WAS CONVERSATION -- I MEAN, I WAS READING
THE PAPER AND IT WOULD COME UP ABOUT JUST NICOLE, THAT
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER.
Q DO YOU RECALL HOW THAT HAPPENED TO COME UP, HOW
COME YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HIM AND NICOLE BEING THROUGH?
A I THINK HE -- IT JUST CAME UP ABOUT HE WAS
GOING TO THE RECITAL. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH PAULA
BECAUSE I THINK O.J. JUST WANTED TO GO TO THE RECITAL ON
HIS OWN AND I THINK SHE WANTED TO GO AND I THINK IT JUST
CAME UP LIKE THAT.
Q DID PAULA CALL AT SOME POINT THAT AFTERNOON
DURING THAT CONVERSATION?
A GOSH, I -- I THINK SO. I -- I CAN'T RECOLLECT
IT. I'M -- I THINK SO.
Q AND WHO DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PAULA?
WHO IS THAT?
A UMM, O.J.'S GIRLFRIEND.
Q PAULA BARBIERI IS THAT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT
ABOUT PAULA BARBIERI?
A THAT -- I THINK SHE WANTED TO GO AND THAT WAS
IT, THAT I THINK O.J. JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT KIND OF A
FAMILY THING, JUST BE ON HIS OWN.
Q DID HE TELL YOU THAT PAULA WAS UPSET BECAUSE
SHE WANTED TO GO TO THE RECITAL?
A UH-HUH. YES.
Q SHE WANTED TO SHOW NICOLE THAT SHE WAS THE
DEFENDANT'S GIRL?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: NO. IS THIS WHAT THE DEFENDANT
TOLD YOU?
THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU
THAT PAULA SAID TO HIM?
A I THINK SHE WAS UPSET THAT SHE WASN'T GOING TO
GO.
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
MS. CLARK: 1220, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: 1220.
MS. CLARK: EVIDENCE CODE SECTION.
THE COURT: NO. I KNOW. I'M THINKING.
I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
MS. CLARK: CAN I BE HEARD?
THE COURT: SURE. HOW ABOUT LATER?
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
THE COURT: PROCEED.
MS. CLARK: WELL, I AM GOING TO GET PAST IT. HOW LATE
ARE WE GOING TO GO?
THE COURT: TILL YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE.
IS THIS A GOOD POINT?
MS. CLARK: I GUESS SO, SO THAT WE CAN WORK THIS
THROUGH BECAUSE THEN --
THE COURT: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM GOING TO TAKE A
RECESS AT THIS POINT.
PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T
DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY
OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS
UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW
ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARDS TO THE CASE.
MR. KAELIN, I AM GOING TO EXCUSE YOU UNTIL
TOMORROW MORNING AT 8:45. DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY
WITH ANYBODY EXCEPT FOR THE ATTORNEYS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, SIR?
THE WITNESS: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 8:45. SEE YOU TOMORROW.
ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNSEL, WE'LL ARGUE THAT ISSUE AS SOON AS WE
EXCUSE THE JURY.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS.
THANK YOU.
(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.
(AT 3:10 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT
WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 22, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS.
) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995
VOLUME 111
PAGES 19581 THROUGH 19787, INCLUSIVE
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 111 PAGES 19581 - 19787
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
TUESDAY MARCH 21, 1995 A.M. 19581 111
P.M. 19704 111
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
VANNATTER, 111
PHILIP
(RESUMED) 19604S 19683D
(RESUMED) 19707D 19711S
(FURTHER) 19729D
LANGE, TOM
(RECALLED) 19732D 19734C 19738D 111
(VOIR DIRE) 19741C
(RESUMED) 19743D
KAELIN, BRIAN 19749MC 111
KATO
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
KAELIN, BRIAN 19749MC 111
KATO
LANGE, TOM
(RECALLED) 19732D 19734C 19738D 111
(VOIR DIRE) 19741C
(RESUMED) 19743D
VANNATTER, 111
PHILIP
(RESUMED) 19604S 19683D
(RESUMED) 19707D 19711S
(FURTHER) 19729D
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
125 - POSTERBOARD 19700 111
ENTITLED "THE GLOVES" WITH FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS
125-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19700 111
A GLOVE ON THE GROUND AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM
125-B - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19700 111
THE TOP OF THE GLOVES RETRIEVED
125-C - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19700 111
THE BOTTOM OF THE GLOVES RETRIEVED
125-D - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19700 111
THE GROUND AT BUNDY CRIME SCENE
126 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19710 111
THE FLOOR OF THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM AT 360
NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH TWO SOCKS
127 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19710 111
A CLOSE-UP OF THE FLOOR OF THE DEFENDANT'S
BEDROOM AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH TWO SOCKS
128 - PHOTOGRAPH 19739 111
(NOT DESCRIBED)
129 - POSTERBOARD 19766 111
ENTITLED "KAELIN'S ROOM" WITH TWO PHOTOGRAPHS
129-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19766 111
A LEFT VIEW OF KAELIN'S ROOM AT 360 NORTH
ROCKINGHAM
129-B - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19766 111
A RIGHT VIEW OF KAELIN'S ROOM AT 360 NORTH
ROCKINGHAM
EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1058 - MAP 19661 111
1059 - VIDEOTAPE OF 19681 111
VANNATTER AT CRIME SCENE
1060 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19714 111
A FULL VIEW OF THE BED IN THE GUEST HOUSE AT
360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM
1061 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 19714 111
A PARTIAL VIEW OF THE BED IN THE GUEST HOUSE
AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM