Direct examination of Kelly Mulldorfer

📄 Direct examination of Kelly Mulldorfer — Thursday, December 12, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\12\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-KELLY-MU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 31 of 57

◀ Jury greeting and exhibit admissions Cross-examination of Kelly Mulldorfer ▶

Witness: Det. Kelly Mulldorfer
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, December 12, 1996 • Utterances: 254

Defense detective Kelly Mulldorfer testified about her 1994 investigation into a theft from Simpson's impounded white Ford Bronco at Viertels tow garage. She revealed that no log was kept of who entered or exited the vehicle despite its 'special care' evidentiary hold status. The defense then showed her photographs (Exhibit 1420) of what appeared to be blood on the Bronco's console, which she could not recall seeing during her inspection in early-to-mid July 1994.

# 1 MR. LEONARD:

Good morning.

We call Detective Kelly Mulldorfer.

KELLY MULLDORFER, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

# 2 THE CLERK:

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?

# 3 DET. KELLY MULLDORFER:

I do.

# 4 THE BAILIFF:

Please be seated.

# 5 THE CLERK:

And would you please state and spell your name for the record.

# 6 DET. KELLY MULLDORFER:

Kelly Mulldorfer. That's K-e-l-l-y, M-u-l-l-d-o-r-f-e-r.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

# 7 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Good morning, Detective Mulldorfer?

# 8 A:

Morning.

# 9 Q:

Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and the Court, what your present occupation is?

# 10 A:

I'm a detective for the Los Angeles Police Department.

# 11 Q:

And where are you presently assigned?

# 12 A:

I'm currently assigned to the legal affairs division.

# 13 Q:

How long have you been a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department?

# 14 A:

About three years.

# 15 Q:

How long have you been a Los Angeles police officer?

# 16 A:

Oh I've been on the department for 16 years.

# 17 Q:

Now, directing your attention to July of 1994, where were you assigned at that time?

# 18 A:

I was assigned to the police commission, investigation division, enforcement section.

# 19 Q:

Just tell us in general terms, what that division does, or what that department does.

# 20 A:

Well, the police commission issues permits for various businesses in the City of Los Angeles and we investigate -- we investigate those companies or businesses that hold police commission permits, which would include official police car garages and security guard companies, and things like that.

# 21 Q:

Well, can you explain what is an official police garage, Detective Mulldorfer?

# 22 A:

An official police garage is the garage that has the contract with the city to do all of our towing for our vehicles when we have them towed or stored for one reason or another.

# 23 Q:

That would include vehicles impounded for investigatory purposes, correct?

# 24 A:

Yes.

# 25 Q:

Now, in July of 1994, were you assigned to investigate security issues surrounding the white Ford Bronco owned by Mr. Simpson?

# 26 A:

Yes.

# 27 Q:

And in particular, were you -- were you assigned to investigate an alleged break-in to the vehicle, and some theft of some items from the vehicle?

# 28 A:

Yes, I was assigned to investigate a theft --

# 29 Q:

Okay.

# 30 A:

-- from the vehicle.

# 31 Q:

And I take it that part of your assignment was to make sure that -- that the security procedures that were in effect at this garage that the Bronco was being held at were adequate; is that correct?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 Q:

Okay.

By the way, what is the name of the garage?

# 34 A:

Viertels tow.

# 35 Q:

Where is that located?

# 36 A:

It's located on Temple Street.

You know, I don't have the exact address. I have it with me, if you need the exact address.

# 37 Q:

No. Just tell us in general terms what part of Los Angeles that's in, if you know.

# 38 A:

Well it's in the Rampart area on Temple Street.

# 39 Q:

Okay.

And, of course, Viertesls is what's called an OPG, or official police garage?

# 40 A:

Yes.

# 41 Q:

Who gave you this assignment, by the way?

# 42 A:

My commanding officer.

# 43 Q:

And what were you told your assignment was?

# 44 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 45 MR. LEONARD:

It's to explain the subsequent conduct, Your Honor.

# 46 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 47 A:

I was given the investigation to -- I was told to investigate the theft, and to look and see if Viertesls had violated any of the rules that they are required to abide by.

# 48 Q:

Okay.

And in particular, what were you told about the theft?

# 49 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 50 MR. LEONARD:

Same.

# 51 THE COURT:

That's sustained.

# 52 MR. LEONARD:

It explains her subsequent conduct, Your Honor.

# 53 MR. GELBLUM:

Given the assignment, Your Honor --

# 54 MR. LEONARD:

The breadth of the investigation, I think, is relevant.

May we approach?

# 55 THE COURT:

No.

# 56 MR. LEONARD:

It's one question.

# 57 THE COURT:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is another instance where parties want to get in some hearsay to explain another purpose, or in this case, conduct. When we let you hear that, that's not being received to show that a theft occurred or anything in particular happened in this particular conversation or report that this officer received.

It's only to explain what she did subsequent to that, so you can't consider it as proof of any theft or anything like that.

Everybody understand that?

# 58 JURORS:

Yes, sir.

# 59 THE COURT:

Okay. Go ahead.

# 60 MR. LEONARD:

As briefly as possible, can you explain in some detail what you were told about the theft?

# 61 A:

Well, actually, we --

# 62 Q:

The alleged theft.

# 63 A:

Okay.

We received a letter from Mr. Viertels, and I was given a copy of the letter that outlined the -- the circumstances under which one of their tow-truck drivers was let go. And that included the allegation of a theft from that particular vehicle.

# 64 Q:

That the tow-truck driver had gone into the vehicle and taken something out of it?

# 65 A:

Yes.

# 66 Q:

What were the items?

# 67 A:

Some type of papers, credit-card receipts, cleaning receipts, or something like that.

# 68 Q:

Now, were any limitations placed on you in your investigation?

# 69 A:

I don't understand what you mean.

# 70 Q:

Well, were you simply going to investigate this particular theft, or did you have in mind making sure that no other thefts had occurred, or that there hadn't been any other illegal entries or unauthorized entries? Let me put it that way.

I take it you weren't limiting yourselves once you got this.

# 71 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Compound.

# 72 THE COURT:

Sustained.

Why don't you ask her the scope of her assignment?

# 73 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) I take it you weren't limiting yourself in your investigation; is that right?

# 74 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Vague. She already said what her assignment was, Your Honor.

# 75 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Were you interested, Detective Mulldorfer, in determining whether or not there had been any other unauthorized entries of any kind?

# 76 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 77 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 78 MR. LEONARD:

It explains her subsequent conduct. I can --

# 79 THE COURT:

You could ask her about this vehicle.

# 80 MR. LEONARD:

I intend to.

# 81 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) As part of the investigation you undertook, you inspected the Bronco; is that right?

# 82 A:

I don't know if "inspected" would be the right word.

I went and looked for the items inside the vehicle.

# 83 Q:

Well, you used the word "inspect" when you were asked the same question at the criminal trial. Do you remember that?

# 84 A:

Well, if it's in the transcript, then I must have said it, so I'll stand by that.

# 85 Q:

So you did an inspection?

# 86 A:

Okay. I -- that's --

# 87 MR. GELBLUM:

Can we get a page and line number?

# 88 THE COURT:

No. Because it hasn't been used.

# 89 MR. GELBLUM:

He's representing some --

# 90 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Did you inspect the Bronco?

# 91 A:

I looked in the Bronco. Yes, I did.

# 92 Q:

It was your intention, when you went there, to inspect the Bronco, correct?

# 93 A:

It was my intention to go and look for the paperwork that was allegedly missing.

# 94 Q:

And in the course of -- of your investigation, and your inspection of the Bronco, tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury which portions of the Bronco that you looked into or looked around.

# 95 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Misstates the testimony. She said she did not inspect it; she looked for the receipts.

# 96 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 97 A:

Okay.

I looked in the side-door pockets of the Bronco. I believe we looked in the console, in between the seats, and we may have looked in the glove box.

I don't have any independent recollection of that.

# 98 Q:

You -- you looked in the side-door panels; you looked in the console and around the console I assume, correct?

# 99 A:

What do you mean, "around?"

# 100 Q:

Well, you wanted to make sure that -- that if you were looking for the credit slips -- correct?

# 101 A:

Yes.

# 102 Q:

You wanted to make sure you looked everywhere that the credit slips could be, correct?

# 103 A:

Well, I -- I looked in -- I can only tell you where I did look. That was in the side-door pockets. We lifted up the -- or I think it was Bob Jones that may have lifted up the console lid. We looked in there and the other door pocket. And that was it.

# 104 Q:

Okay. So you -- you did look around the console; is that correct?

# 105 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection misstates the testimony. Asked and answered.

# 106 A:

Well, I don't --

# 107 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 108 A:

(Continuing.) I don't quite understand what you're getting at. If you're asking me did I look down between the seats, press them apart, look down in there --

# 109 Q:

Yeah.

# 110 A:

No, I didn't. No, I did not.

# 111 Q:

But you did open the console; is that right?

# 112 MR. GELBLUM:

Asked and answered.

# 113 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 114 A:

It's my recollection that Bob Jones opened the console.

# 115 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You were present when he did that?

# 116 A:

Sure.

# 117 Q:

You wanted to see what's in there?

# 118 A:

Yes. I was standing next to him.

# 119 Q:

You didn't have your eyes closed?

# 120 A:

No, sir.

# 121 Q:

You didn't look away, right?

# 122 A:

This was three years ago. I don't remember if I looked away. I was there when he opened it. I glanced, overlooked, and --

# 123 Q:

By the way, do you wear glasses?

# 124 A:

Yes, I do.

# 125 Q:

Were you wearing your glasses?

# 126 A:

No.

# 127 Q:

What do you wear glasses for?

# 128 A:

To read small print.

# 129 Q:

I want to call your attention to the testimony at the criminal trial.

It's 38267, line 24.

# 130 A:

Okay.

# 131 Q:

Now, Ms. Mulldorfer -- Detective Mulldorfer, did there come a time when you -- you, yourself, inspected the Bronco?

Answer: "Yes."

Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you inspected the Bronco, or that you used that term at the criminal trial?

# 132 A:

It sounds like he used the word and I said yes. And if that's my testimony, then -- then I must have interpreted his question to mean did I look in the vehicle.

# 133 Q:

Did you -- if you want to look the at transcript?

# 134 A:

Sure, yes. I'd like to. Thank you.

# 135 (Witness perusing criminal trial transcript.)

# 136 Q:

I'm sorry.

# 137 A:

Well, okay.

He used that word, and it was my interpretation that he meant to look in the vehicle. It's not a word that I possibly would have chosen to describe my activities, but. . .

# 138 Q:

Did you attempt at any point to correct Mr. Scheck when he asked you that question?

# 139 A:

No.

# 140 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 141 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 142 A:

No.

# 143 Q:

Did you say to him, that's your interpretation, but I didn't do that?

# 144 A:

No. I think the record will reflect that I didn't say that, no.

# 145 Q:

Okay.

Now, was there any problem with the lighting in the vehicle that day?

In other words, were you able to see adequately for your purposes?

# 146 A:

Well, I don't remember that -- I don't believe I had to use a flashlight or anything. I don't really have any specific recollection about the lighting.

# 147 Q:

Is there any reason for you to believe that you would have undertaken your investigation and inspection without adequate lighting, Detective Mulldorfer --

# 148 A:

Well, if there had --

# 149 Q:

-- since you don't recollect?

# 150 A:

If there hadn't been adequate lighting, I would have asked for a flashlight.

# 151 Q:

So the lighting was adequate, correct, for you to do your inspection?

# 152 A:

For my purposes, yes.

# 153 Q:

Okay.

And again, you weren't wearing your glasses. Did that -- do you think that impaired your ability to see at all?

# 154 A:

Well, it would have if I needed to look at a receipt.

And to be honest with you, I don't know that I wasn't wearing my glasses. I don't remember that. I may or may not have been. But the fact that it would have, had -- if I had to see something in detail, but certainly I think I would have been able to -- able to spot a paper receipt. I possibly would have put my glasses on to read the receipt.

# 155 Q:

You wouldn't have any trouble, for instance, spotting an object maybe that big from, like, inside the car?

The receipt would have been about that big, right? (Indicating.)

# 156 A:

About that big.

# 157 Q:

You wouldn't have any problems seeing the object?

# 158 A:

No.

# 159 Q:

You might have had problems seeing the small print, the print on the object, without your glasses?

# 160 A:

Yes.

# 161 Q:

Having talked about this, now, for a couple of minutes, is your memory refreshed at all as to whether or not you were wearing your glasses?

# 162 A:

No.

# 163 Q:

Now, when you went into the Bronco, what --

What date was that, by the way?

# 164 A:

I don't know what date that was.

# 165 Q:

Let me ask you something:

One of the reasons that you were investigating was to make sure that Viertels had the proper paperwork or documentation of when people went in and out of the Bronco, correct?

# 166 A:

Yes, that became an issue in the investigation.

# 167 Q:

And you determined rather early on that they didn't have -- they did not keep a log, as they were supposed to, of individuals who came in and out of the Bronco; isn't that correct?

# 168 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

# 169 THE COURT:

You may answer.

# 170 A:

At the time, I believe the requirements were that they -- they keep a log of people who go in and remove things from the vehicle.

And they didn't have that in place at this time.

# 171 Q:

They didn't have any records of -- of any kind indicating who went in and out of the vehicle; isn't that right?

# 172 A:

No, they -- but they're not required to indicate who -- at that time, they were not required to indicate anyone who had gone in and looked in the vehicle, or if they didn't remove anything from the vehicle -- remove any property from the vehicle. They were not required to log that in.

# 173 Q:

But if -- if anything was removed from the vehicle, that should have been lodged, correct?

# 174 A:

Yes.

# 175 Q:

Okay.

Including biological material, correct?

# 176 A:

You know, I'd have to look at OPG rules. But I don't think that we would normally sustain a violation of that section if we went in there to remove biological evidence.

# 177 Q:

By the way, this requirement that a log be kept of people who go in and remove items, that would include police officers and criminalists, correct?

# 178 A:

Again, I'd have to read the section again on that.

I don't -- it's my recollection that it talks about removing property for safekeeping or things like that. But on an evidentiary stored vehicle, I don't believe they were required to note what we took out of the vehicle, because a lot of times, we may not want that.

I mean, it's part of a criminal investigation. I don't think the OPG had any reason to know what we would remove in terms of evidence.

# 179 Q:

Now, this vehicle was being held under what was called special care requirements or provisions; is that right?

# 180 A:

It was in their evidentiary hold area, yes.

# 181 Q:

You're familiar with the term "special care," right?

# 182 A:

It's on the vehicle impound sheet.

# 183 Q:

Explain what that is to the jury.

# 184 A:

Special care is the -- I believe it's a box on our vehicle report form that lets the garage know that it's to be kept in a certain area, the evidentiary hold area, which is an area that's cordoned off inside; it's covered, so that the elements can't get to the vehicle.

Usually, it's used with vehicles that we're holding for some type of evidence, or prints, or part of a criminal investigation.

# 185 Q:

And as part of the requirements for special care, isn't it true that -- that there should -- that's one of the reasons there should be a log of people who go in and out of the vehicle; isn't that right, that when a vehicle is held under special care provisions; isn't that correct?

# 186 A:

Yes.

# 187 Q:

Okay.

And again, there was no log for this vehicle, correct?

# 188 A:

No, there wasn't.

# 189 Q:

And there wasn't a log created until after you had done your investigation, correct?

# 190 A:

Correct.

# 191 Q:

By the way, you didn't indicate anywhere in writing when you went in and out of the vehicle; isn't that right?

# 192 A:

That's correct.

# 193 Q:

When you went into that vehicle, did you see blood anywhere?

# 194 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence that she went into the vehicle.

# 195 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 196 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You did go into the vehicle. You reached in or looked into the vehicle?

# 197 A:

I leaned in, yes. Um-hum.

# 198 Q:

When you were looking at the console, did you see blood there?

# 199 A:

I -- I don't remember if I did or I didn't.

# 200 Q:

Okay.

I'd like to show you a photograph.

See if this refreshes your recollection.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1420.

# 201 (Exhibit No.1420 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 202 Q:

This was a photograph taken on August 10.

By the way, when -- when -- before we start, when did you go -- when did you go over and inspect the vehicle, approximately?

# 203 A:

It was shortly after I got the investigation on July 13, I believe. I would say within a week, probably.

# 204 Q:

Do you remember yesterday we had a chat out in the hallway, and I showed you something in your report which indicated that in your report, you had indicated as of 7/18 you had already been into the vehicle?

Do you remember that?

# 205 A:

I remember the conversation. I don't think there was an indication in any report when I went in there.

# 206 Q:

Do you remember your report says that you, on your -- it was your first visit with Mr. Jones, that you went into the vehicle, correct?

# 207 A:

Yes.

# 208 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection.

# 209 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) And your second visit with Mr. Jones was on the 18th of July, correct?

You can look at your report.

# 210 A:

I believe that's what my report said.

# 211 Q:

So it would have been before July 18 that you went into the Bronco?

# 212 A:

I think that would probably be fair to say.

# 213 Q:

Okay.

Take a look at that photograph. I want you to concentrate, in particular, on the sections of the console that you can see.

# 214 A:

Okay.

# 215 (Witness perusing photograph.)

# 216 MR. LEONARD:

Right in here.

# 217 (Indicating to photo displayed on the Elmo screen.)

# 218 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you see any blood there?

# 219 MR. GELBLUM:

Your Honor, I'm going to object to the use of this unless we have some foundation where it was when it was taken.

# 220 MR. LEONARD:

We'll prove it up. We have a witness who will prove it up.

# 221 THE COURT:

Go ahead.

# 222 A:

I can't see anything from the photograph, no.

# 223 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Does that -- does that refresh your recollection in any way, whether or not there was blood in that vehicle when you saw it between July 10 and July 18?

# 224 A:

No.

# 225 Q:

Doesn't refresh your recollection at all?

# 226 A:

No.

# 227 MR. LEONARD:

Show the next photo.

MR. P. BAKER: Page 2 of 1420.

# 228 MR. LEONARD:

Put it so that the dark line on the console is horizontal.

# 229 (Photo adjusted on Elmo.)

# 230 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I want you again --

# 231 MR. LEONARD:

Do we have a number for that?

MR. P. BAKER: That's page 2 of 1420.

# 232 Q:

MR. LEONARD: I want you to direct your attention again to the console area, and ask you: Does that refresh your recollection of whether or not there was blood on the console when you saw it between July 10 and July 18, 1994?

# 233 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection about foundation.

# 234 MR. LEONARD:

We'll prove this up, just like you did.

# 235 MR. GELBLUM:

I didn't do anything. Showing a witness a picture with no foundation about when it was taken or where it was taken.

# 236 MR. LEONARD:

It was taken on August 26, 1994. And we'll prove it up.

# 237 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, does that refresh your recollection whether or not there was blood there?

# 238 A:

Well, no, it doesn't.

But I must add that I didn't look in the console from the passenger's side.

# 239 Q:

Oh, you remember that?

# 240 A:

Yes, I do. I do remember that.

# 241 Q:

So you -- you did go to the side pocket on the door on the passenger's side, didn't you?

# 242 A:

Yes.

# 243 Q:

Did you look at all in that direction, at that time?

# 244 A:

I don't remember that.

# 245 Q:

Did you look in the glove compartment?

# 246 A:

Probably.

# 247 Q:

Okay.

And do you think your vision was just focused entirely on the glove compartment and/or the pocket, and you had no occasion to look anywhere in the direction of the console; is that your testimony?

# 248 A:

No, I'm not testifying -- I'm not saying that I didn't look in that direction.

I'm saying I don't recall whether I saw anything or not. I wasn't looking for that particular type of evidence; I was looking for receipts. And it would -- and it -- It didn't leave an impression on me whether or not I saw it.

I don't recall any more than I recall whether I had lunch that day. It was just not something that I remember.

# 249 Q:

Now, was -- were these two photographs ever pointed out to you at any time?

Did you -- were you ever asked to do any investigation of -- of these photographs and how blood apparently got on and off the Bronco?

# 250 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 251 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Were you ever asked to do that?

# 252 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 253 A:

I've never seen these photographs.

KEY QUOTE

# 254 MR. LEONARD:

I don't think so.

No further questions.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Kelly Mulldorfer

No, there wasn't.

Confirms no access log existed for the Bronco despite special care/evidentiary hold requirements — core chain-of-custody attack by defense.

Kelly Mulldorfer

I wasn't looking for that particular type of evidence; I was looking for receipts. And it would -- and it -- It didn't leave an impression on me whether or not I saw it. I don't recall any more than I recall whether I had lunch that day.

Explains why she can't confirm or deny blood on the console — but also underscores that the vehicle was accessible and unmonitored.

Kelly Mulldorfer

It was my interpretation that he meant to look in the vehicle. It's not a word that I possibly would have chosen to describe my activities, but. . .

Reluctant concession on terminology after being confronted with her criminal trial testimony — shows slight evasiveness under examination.

Kelly Mulldorfer

I've never seen these photographs.

Closing admission that LAPD never asked her to investigate how blood apparently appeared on and possibly disappeared from the Bronco — reinforces defense's evidence-handling narrative.

Evidence (3)

Exhibit 1420 (pages 1 and 2)

Photographs of the Bronco console area taken August 26, 1994, apparently showing blood

Shown to witness to refresh recollection; witness said she could not see anything from the photo and it did not refresh her memory

Informal

Mulldorfer's investigation report noting two visits to the Bronco with Bob Jones, second visit dated July 18, 1994

Referenced by Leonard to establish timeline of when Mulldorfer accessed the vehicle

Informal

Criminal trial transcript at page 38267, line 24, containing Mulldorfer's prior testimony about inspecting the Bronco

Used to confront witness on use of word 'inspect'

Notable Exchanges (3)

Dan Leonard•Kelly Mulldorfer

Extended back-and-forth over whether she 'inspected' the Bronco or merely 'looked in' it, culminating in her reviewing her criminal trial transcript and conceding Scheck used the word and she said yes.

strategic

Dan Leonard•Kelly Mulldorfer

Leonard pressed her on whether the log requirement covered biological material and police/criminalist entries; she equivocated, saying she'd need to re-read OPG rules and suggesting criminalist removals may not have required logging.

revealing

Dan Leonard•Kelly Mulldorfer

Glasses exchange: Leonard asked if she was wearing her glasses when inspecting the vehicle; she ultimately could not remember, but clarified she only needed them for small print, not spotting a paper receipt.

light

Light Moments (1)

Kelly Mulldorfer

Leonard asked if she had her eyes closed or looked away when Jones opened the console; she deadpanned 'This was three years ago. I don't remember if I looked away.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Kelly Mulldorfer

prior inconsistent statement / word choice confrontation

Leonard used her criminal trial testimony to establish she said she 'inspected' the Bronco, forcing her to walk back her preferred characterization of merely 'looking' for receipts.

Witness Demeanor

(Witness perusing criminal trial transcript.)

(Witness perusing photograph.)

Objections

14 objections (4 sustained, 10 overruled)

Proceeding 8633 • 254 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103