Cross-examination of Frank Spangler (1 of 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Frank Spangler (1 of 2) — Thursday, December 12, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\12\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-FRANK-SPA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 31 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Frank Spangler Cross-examination of Frank Spangler ▶

Witness: Lt. Frank Spangler
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, December 12, 1996 • Utterances: 85

Plaintiff's counsel Medvene cross-examined LAPD Lieutenant Spangler about his movements at the Bundy crime scene on the night of the murders. The key testimony established that Fuhrman was wearing a jacket at 2:30 a.m. but not at 3:00 a.m., and that Fuhrman remained in Spangler's sight from approximately 3:05 a.m. until 5:00 a.m., when he requested permission to go to Rockingham. The examination was repeatedly curtailed by the judge as going beyond the scope of direct.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

# 2 Q:

Lieutenant Spangler, you were asked about your arrival about 2:30 and where you went. You said you went to the rear of the Bundy residence; is that correct?

# 3 A:

Yes, I did, sir.

# 4 Q:

And what did you do -- what did you see when you got there, and what did you do?

# 5 A:

At the rear?

# 6 Q:

Yes, sir.

# 7 A:

I saw Detective Phillips, Detective Roberts, and Detective Fuhrman standing to the rear. Fuhrman and Roberts were over to one side, engaged in a conversation.

Phillips, upon recognizing me, walked over to me and had a brief conversation with me.

I believe Sergeant Rossi was also in the rear of the location.

I got a briefing of what they thought we might have. And then we went into the interior of the condominium.

KEY QUOTE

# 8 Q:

And was it at that time that Mr. Fuhrman had a jacket on?

# 9 A:

Yes.

# 10 Q:

And did you so testify, also, at the criminal trial?

# 11 A:

Yes, sir.

# 12 Q:

Now, you went inside the conversation -- inside the condominium with Detective Phillips?

# 13 A:

Yes, I did.

# 14 Q:

And did you walk to the front steps?

# 15 A:

I'm sorry.

# 16 Q:

Did you walk to the front-step area?

# 17 A:

I walked to the front-door area.

# 18 Q:

All right.

And what did you do there?

# 19 A:

I viewed the area where the bodies were laying from the front-door area, staying inside the door, shining my light around that, kind of, you know, trying to get a view from that angle of what we had.

# 20 Q:

Okay.

And then what did you do?

# 21 A:

After that?

# 22 Q:

Yes, sir.

# 23 A:

We saw some bloody footprints that were on this pathway; that is, on the north end of your drawing here, that appeared to be leading to the back of the condominium, going out towards the back gate. And we took a look at some of that.

There was a hand rail that looked like it had been touched, perhaps, by someone that had a bloody hand.

# 24 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, Your Honor. Calls for speculation; lack of foundation; and outside the scope.

# 25 (The Court reviews the real-time computer screen.)

# 26 THE COURT:

Appears to be outside the scope. Sustained.

# 27 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You were -- after you walked through, did you walk through to the rear again, where you started?

# 28 A:

When I went to the rear, we went to the rear through the condominium, not through the pathway.

# 29 Q:

Okay.

And then where did you go?

# 30 A:

Around to the front of the condominium, out on Bundy.

# 31 Q:

And did you approach the crime scene again?

# 32 A:

Yes, I did.

# 33 Q:

Tell us where you went.

# 34 A:

This time, we approached where the --

# 35 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I'm objecting. This is outside the scope.

# 36 MR. MEDVENE:

This is within. He asked him about, I believe, coming --

# 37 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 38 MR. MEDVENE:

Sorry. Go ahead.

# 39 A:

We approached where the bodies were laying, by approaching through some foliage that was just to the south of the sidewalk that led up to the front of the condominium.

# 40 Q:

And who was "we?"

# 41 A:

Detective Phillips and myself.

# 42 Q:

Did you have your flashlight?

# 43 A:

Yes, I did.

# 44 Q:

What power is it?

# 45 A:

It's extremely -- it's a very powerful, bright, rechargeable flashlight that the city gives us.

# 46 Q:

Did you shine the flashlight on the crime scene?

# 47 A:

Yes.

# 48 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I object. This is outside the scope.

# 49 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 50 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you view the crime scene from three different locations?

# 51 MR. LEONARD:

Same objection.

# 52 THE COURT:

That's overruled.

# 53 A:

Yes sir, I did.

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you only see one glove after you used your flashlight?

# 55 MR. LEONARD:

Object. Move to strike.

# 56 THE COURT:

Mr. Medvene, this witness is only offered to testify wherever he went on his visit, not what he saw. So that's beyond the scope of redirect examination.

KEY QUOTE

# 57 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) When you went to the --

Did there come a time after you were at the front of Bundy -- you told us you viewed the crime scene three additional times -- did there come a time when you were on Bundy when you again saw Mr. Fuhrman or Detective Fuhrman?

# 58 A:

Yes.

# 59 Q:

And approximately what time was that?

# 60 A:

Approximately 3 o'clock in the morning.

# 61 Q:

And was he wearing a jacket at that time?

# 62 A:

No, he was not.

# 63 Q:

And was Mr. -- or Detective Fuhrman in your sight from that time, around 3:05 or in that vicinity on Bundy, until approximately 5:00 a.m.?

# 64 A:

Yes, he was.

# 65 Q:

And at 5:00 a.m., where did he go?

# 66 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Calls for speculation. Lack of foundation.

# 67 THE COURT:

Sustained as phrased.

# 68 MR. LEONARD:

And beyond the scope.

# 69 THE COURT:

That's overruled.

# 70 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you know where Detective Fuhrman went at 5:00 a.m.?

A.: I know where they asked permission to go.

# 71 Q:

And where was that?

# 72 A:

They asked permission to go to the Rockingham address of Mr. Simpson.

KEY QUOTE

# 73 Q:

Incidentally, you were in charge of the -- I think counsel asked you, all the detectives at West LA?

# 74 A:

Correct.

# 75 Q:

And did you instruct your detectives that while robbery/homicide division from downtown was taking over, those detectives were to stay available to robbery/homicide and give them every assistance asked for?

# 76 A:

Yes.

# 77 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Beyond the scope. Move to strike.

# 78 THE COURT:

It is beyond the scope. I'm going to let it stay. Otherwise, he's going to have to come back to testify just to that.

# 79 MR. LEONARD:

He was here before.

# 80 THE COURT:

I'll stand on what I said.

Now, if you go beyond that, I'm going to start striking it.

# 81 MR. MEDVENE:

All right, Your Honor. To save -- whatever Your Honor's pleasure is. There are certain areas --

# 82 THE COURT:

No. If that's what you're going to do, then you can call him back.

# 83 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, sir. We'll do that, then.

# 84 THE COURT:

All right.

# 85 MR. MEDVENE:

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Lieutenant.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Spangler

They asked permission to go to the Rockingham address of Mr. Simpson.

Establishes the chain of custody of detectives from Bundy to Rockingham, relevant to how the glove ended up there.

Spangler

I saw Detective Phillips, Detective Roberts, and Detective Fuhrman standing to the rear. Fuhrman and Roberts were over to one side, engaged in a conversation.

Places Fuhrman's exact location and activity at 2:30 a.m., part of the timeline reconstruction.

Spangler

No, he was not.

Confirms Fuhrman was not wearing his jacket at 3:00 a.m., after wearing one at 2:30 a.m. — the missing jacket is relevant to glove-planting allegations.

Fujisaki

Mr. Medvene, this witness is only offered to testify wherever he went on his visit, not what he saw. So that's beyond the scope of redirect examination.

Fujisaki blocks Medvene from eliciting whether Spangler saw only one glove at Bundy, cutting off a potentially significant line of questioning.

Fujisaki

Otherwise, he's going to have to come back to testify just to that.

Fujisaki allows testimony beyond strict scope as a matter of judicial economy, but then reverses and tells Medvene to recall the witness if needed.

Evidence (3)

Informal

A drawing or diagram of the Bundy property referred to as 'your drawing here'

referenced to orient testimony about bloody footprints on the north pathway

Informal

Bloody footprints on the pathway leading toward the rear gate

described by witness; testimony partially struck as outside scope

Informal

Handrail that appeared touched by a bloody hand

mentioned by witness; objection sustained as speculation

Notable Exchanges (2)

Medvene•Fujisaki

Medvene attempts to ask whether Spangler saw only one glove while using his flashlight. Fujisaki shuts it down, ruling the witness was offered only to testify about his movements, not observations.

strategic

Leonard•Fujisaki•Medvene

Fujisaki initially allows testimony beyond scope to avoid recalling the witness, then reverses himself mid-ruling and tells Medvene he'll have to call Spangler back if he wants to go further.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Mark Fuhrman

timeline inconsistency / circumstantial

Medvene establishes that Fuhrman was wearing a jacket at 2:30 a.m. but not at 3:00 a.m., and was in Spangler's sight from 3:05 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. before going to Rockingham — suggesting a narrow window that is relevant to glove-planting theories.

Objections

9 objections (5 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8638 • 85 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103