Redirect examination of Robert Groden (part 4)

📄 Redirect examination of Robert Groden (part 4) — Friday, December 20, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\20\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ROBERT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 35 of 57

◀ Sidebar: Gerry Richards deposition Recess ▶

Witness: Robert Groden
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Friday, December 20, 1996 • Utterances: 331

Plaintiffs' attorney Peter Gelblum methodically dismantled defense photo-forgery expert Robert Groden's testimony by showing that the 'anomalous' blue lines Groden claimed were evidence of fakery in the Simpson shoe photograph actually appear on multiple other frames from the same roll. Groden also retreated from his earlier claim that only one frame was misaligned when Gelblum challenged that assertion. The session devolved into procedural chaos when it was discovered Groden had the contact sheet exhibits in his own briefcase, prompting Judge Fujisaki to call a recess and tell counsel to 'get your act together.'

# 1 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You read Mr. Richard's deposition?

# 2 A:

Yes.

# 3 Q:

Do you rely on that in any way in forming your opinion in this case?

# 4 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, vague what portions.

# 5 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 6 A:

I'm not sure that I did. I noted what he said.

# 7 Q:

Did you rely on any portion of it in forming your opinions in this case?

# 8 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, vague.

# 9 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 10 A:

I don't specifically remember whether I did or I didn't.

# 11 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, you recall that he said that?

# 12 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, calls for hearsay.

# 13 THE COURT:

The witness says he may have, he may not have. You may inquire.

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall Mr. Richards opined that he made nofound no indication of forgery whatsoever in this photograph?

# 15 A:

I read histhat he found no indication.

# 16 Q:

Do you recall that he opined that he did not find any indication of forgery of this photograph?

# 17 A:

I do not specifically recall that he said that.

# 18 Q:

Okay. He didn't say it was a fake, did he?

# 19 A:

I don't believe he did, no.

# 20 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I move to strike. No evidence he relied on that.

# 21 MR. PETROCELLI:

Said he may have.

# 22 THE COURT:

He said he may have, may not have. It's vague.

# 23 MR. LEONARD:

Now he's refreshed his recollection to a specific portion. I ask that it be stricken.

# 24 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 25 MR. LEONARD:

Without a foundation being laid.

# 26 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 27 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you recall from reading the deposition of Mr. Richards an expert witness being retained by the plaintiffs in the case?

# 28 A:

Yes.

# 29 Q:

You found, as you said, his deposition, that he had incredible credentials?

# 30 MR. LEONARD:

Objection.

# 31 THE COURT:

I'll sustain the objection.

# 32 MR. LEONARD:

Move to strike.

# 33 THE COURT:

Stricken.

# 34 MR. GELBLUM:

Your Honor

# 35 THE COURT:

You already tested me.

# 36 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Are you alsoin preparation for thisin connection with this photograph, you read the article in the "Enquirer" where this photograph is printed, didn't you?

# 37 A:

No, I have not.

# 38 Q:

Did you look at it?

# 39 A:

I glanced at it for a moment in a supermarket, while standing in the checkout line.

# 40 Q:

And you recall that in the article

# 41 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, calls forthis is going to call for hearsay.

# 42 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 43 MR. LEONARD:

I'm trying tookay.

# 44 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you rely on anything in the article in forming your opinion that you've given in this case?

# 45 A:

No.

# 46 Q:

You also recall Mr. Scull's deposition that he said hehe testified at his deposition that about a week after he took the picture, he sent a print of this very photograph that we're talking about to Pro Football Weekly?

# 47 A:

I don't remember the specific timing. I remember that he said he sent a copy of it. But I don't recall that

# 48 Q:

Do you recall he said he sent it shortly after he took it?

# 49 A:

He said that he took it

# 50 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 51 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 52 A:

I remember that he said he sent it, but I don'tI don't recall exactly when he said he did it.

# 53 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Just want to show you Mr. Scull's deposition

# 54 MR. LEONARD:

I have an objection to that.

# 55 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 56 THE COURT:

Witness has indicated he relied on portions of Scull's deposition.

# 57 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I withdraw the objection.

# 58 THE COURT:

As there is no opinion?

# 59 MR. LEONARD:

I assumed he was going to publish it. I withdraw the objection.

# 60 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) On page 84 of Mr. Scull's deposition, the question from Mr. Baker: Why is it that you sent an image of Mr. Simpson to Pro Football Weekly?

# 61 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, he's publishing to the jury.

# 62 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 63 MR. GELBLUM:

Would you read that to yourself.

# 64 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I move to strike what he just said.

# 65 MR. GELBLUM:

The witness said he didn't recall.

# 66 THE COURT:

Well, let him read it.

# 67 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor, for the record, this entire deposition was played to the jury in our case in chief, this entire deposition, on videotape.

# 68 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Does that refresh your recollection, sir, that Mr. Scull testified that he sent the picture to Pro Football Weekly about a week after he took the picture?

# 69 A:

That appears to be what he said.

# 70 Q:

That was about nine months before the murders here?

# 71 A:

I have no idea.

# 72 Q:

Well, if the murders were in June of '94, the picture was taken September 1993, about nine months, right.

# 73 MR. LEONARD:

Objection.

# 74 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 75 A:

Would be about nine months, yes.

# 76 Q:

Obviously long before any issue arose in this caseor in the criminal case, rather, about the shoes that were worn by the killer, right?

# 77 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, argumentative.

# 78 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 79 MR. GELBLUM:

Now, Steve, could you put the contact sheet up. 1832. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.)

# 80 THE CLERK:

1832.

# 81 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, there's two photographs of Mr. Simpson on this roll, right? And then one on the other roll; is that right?

# 82 A:

Technically no, technically it appears that there are three in this one.

# 83 Q:

There are three photographs of Mr. Simpson?

# 84 A:

Technically, the back of somebody, second from the top, second from the left, that may be the back of Mr. Simpson, I don't know.

# 85 Q:

There's two that you can recognize Mr. Simpson, right?

# 86 A:

That's correct.

# 87 Q:

And one on the other roll?

# 88 A:

That's correct.

# 89 Q:

I want to be clear before we get deeply into that photograph. Your opinion is that just the one photograph of Mr. Simpson walking, where you can see his shoes, that's the only one that you say is fake?

# 90 THE COURT:

Just a minute. Did you guys screw this thing up. (Referring to focusing Elmo screen.)

MR. P. BAKER: I didn't touch it.

# 91 MR. FOSTER:

The

# 92 MR. PETROCELLI:

The witness was working with it and can't get it back to its original shape, Your Honor.

# 93 MR. LEONARD:

He can correct it in a second. You want to have him come down?

# 94 THE COURT:

It was working perfectly before yesterday.

# 95 MR. LEONARD:

Because there was a manual override. I can actually adjust the focus.

# 96 MR. PETROCELLI:

Can you fix it the way it was?

# 97 MR. LEONARD:

Can you come down and fix it?

# 98 ROBERT GRODEN:

Sure.

# 99 MR. LEONARD:

With the Court's permission. (Witness adjusts Elmo.)

# 100 THE COURT:

That used to be a thousand percent better than that.

# 101 ROBERT GRODEN:

If they had this top light it would possibly be better. They have this bottom light. (Witness adjusts Elmo.)

# 102 ROBERT GRODEN:

There you go.

# 103 MR. GELBLUM:

You have the slides, Mr. Groden, from yesterdayfrom Wednesday?

# 104 ROBERT GRODEN:

Yes.

# 105 MR. GELBLUM:

May I? (Witness produces slides from brief case and hands them to Mr. Gelblum.)

# 106 ROBERT GRODEN:

Thank you.

# 107 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The question is, so everybody's clear about what you're saying, you're opining only that the one photo of Mr. Simpson walking, where you can see his shoes, that's the oneonly one that's fake, right?

# 108 A:

That's the only one that I've determined is fake.

# 109 Q:

Right. Well, part of your determination is that there's things there you don't see on any other of the photographs, right?

# 110 A:

That's part of it, yes.

# 111 Q:

Now, one of the things you mentioned was something about a blue line on the bottom of the photograph, right?

# 112 A:

That's correctwell, no, that's not correct. It's outside the bottom of the photograph.

# 113 Q:

Right between the image and the sprocket holes, right?

# 114 A:

Well, would you clarify that?

# 115 MR. GELBLUM:

Well, let's put the slide up. Steve, would you put this up.

THE COURT REPORTER: Does that have a number?

MR. P. BAKER: It's number 4 of 2282, I believe.

# 116 THE CLERK:

Yeah. (Number 4 of Exhibit No. 2282 displayed.)

# 117 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You're saying the fact there's a blue line in the blackness there or the or a cyan line is, and it's only on this photograph on all the images on the contact sheet is evidence that it's fake, right?

# 118 A:

Well, may Imaybe it's not my position to do so. I'd like to clarify. You asked me about the bottom of the photograph. This is the side.

# 119 Q:

As you told us yesterday, it was the bottom of the strip of negatives?

# 120 A:

Oh, that's true, yes.

# 121 Q:

You know the film goes in horizontally?

# 122 A:

Yes, of course I know.

# 123 Q:

Can you point where the blue line is? (Witness indicates to Elmo TV screen.)

# 124 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You've got an enlargement here. It might be a little easier to see. This is an enlargement of that photograph.

# 125 MR. LEONARD:

Can I see it before it's published to the jury? (Mr. Gelblum displays enlargement to Mr. Leonard.)

# 126 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) It's this blue line here that you're talking about?

# 127 A:

Yes, it's the series of short blue lines by the sprocket holes.

# 128 MR. GELBLUM:

May I exhibit this to the jury, Your Honor?

# 129 THE COURT:

You may. (Blow-up of number 4 of 2282 displayed by counsel.)

# 130 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And you're saying this indicatesthis is one indication that this photograph is a fake, because that's not on any of the other pictures, right?

# 131 A:

What I'm saying is that we're seeing an anomaly there that I cannot detect on any of the other negatives in the contact sheet.

# 132 THE COURT:

Is that particular board you held up, was that marked as something or other?

# 133 MR. FOSTER:

Enlarged of 2071.

# 134 MR. GELBLUM:

Enlarged version of 2071. Do you want to call it a new number or 2071X?

# 135 THE COURT:

You want to use it?

# 136 MR. GELBLUM:

Next in order.

# 137 THE CLERK:

2287.

# 138 (The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2071.)

# 139 (The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2072.)

# 140 (The instrument herein referred to as copy of a photograph with markings was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2076.)

# 141 (The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2071 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2287.)

# 142 (BY MR. GELBLUM) Let me show you an enlarged version of 2076 (sic). It's another photograph of Mr. Simpson taken by Mr. Scull that day. You see the same blue lines, Mr. Groden? 1 2 (Witness reviews blow-up.)

# 143 A:

I see blue lines, but it did not appear to be the same.

# 144 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) They're in the same position, aren't they, sir?

# 145 A:

I would think not. Can I compare the two?

# 146 Q:

Absolutely.

# 147 MR. GELBLUM:

This would be next in order. This is the enlargement of 20 -- what does the back say? 2076.

# 148 THE CLERK:

2288.

# 149 (The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2076 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2288.)

# 150 A:

They do not appear to be the same.

# 151 Q:

They're in the same location, aren't they, sir?

# 152 A:

No, they're not. They're close but they're not in the same location.

# 153 Q:

They're between the sprocket holes and the image, right?

# 154 A:

That's correct.

# 155 MR. GELBLUM:

Show these to the jury?

# 156 THE COURT:

You may. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2288 to jury.)

# 157 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, just for the record

# 158 MR. GELBLUM:

A juror has asked that we hold them up together, if that's okay with you.

# 159 THE COURT:

You'll be able to examine the photographs when you go into the jury room, ladies and gentlemen. Right now you're just looking at the exhibits.

# 160 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Also want to show you an enlargement of 2072.

# 161 MR. GELBLUM:

Next in order.

# 162 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Another blow-up of Mr. Simpson. This one is horizontal so relatively to the others we're looking at this side, right, the bottom of a negative, sir, this would be the bottom of the negative

# 163 A:

That's correct.

# 164 Q:

-- over here? See a blue line on that one, too, sir? (Witness reviews blow-up.)

# 165 A:

Yes, I do.

# 166 Q:

Also between the sprocket holes and the image?

# 167 A:

Yes, but not the same as either of the other two.

# 168 THE CLERK:

That's Exhibit 2289.

# 169 (The instrument herein described as a blow-up of Exhibit 2072 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2289.)

# 170 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Same color, same position?

# 171 A:

No, different position.

# 172 MR. LEONARD:

Object.

# 173 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Different position?

# 174 A:

Yes.

# 175 Q:

Between the sprocket holes and image?

# 176 A:

That's correct.

# 177 Q:

Okay.

# 178 MR. GELBLUM:

May I show this to the jury as well?

# 179 THE COURT:

You may. (Counsel displays Exhibit 2289 to jury.)

# 180 MR. GELBLUM:

Steve, could you put up the the enlargement of the two negatives.

# 181 MR. FOSTER:

1929. (Exhibit 1929 displayed.)

# 182 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you enlargezoom in on the top one.

# 183 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) See the same blue line here, Mr. Groden?

# 184 A:

I see a blue line. I can't determine that it's the same.

# 185 Q:

It's between the image and a sprocket, and it's the same color, right?

# 186 A:

I can't tell. This appears white.

# 187 Q:

Are you color-blind?

# 188 A:

No.

# 189 Q:

That appears white to you?

# 190 A:

Um-hum.

# 191 Q:

Like Mr. Simpson's shirt appeared pink to you?

KEY QUOTE

# 192 A:

Mr. Simpson's shirt is pink.

# 193 Q:

It is?

# 194 A:

In this photograph it is.

# 195 Q:

You sure you're not color-blind?

# 196 A:

I'm positive.

# 197 Q:

Okay. How did you miss all these lines, Mr. Groden?

# 198 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, argumentative.

# 199 THE COURT:

Excuse me. I didn't hear the question.

# 200 MR. GELBLUM:

I'll withdraw it.

# 201 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) How did you simply not see these lines when you were doing your examination? Are you trying to deliberately mislead the jury?

# 202 MR. LEONARD:

Argumentative, Your Honor.

# 203 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 204 A:

They don't appear on what I was furnished with.

KEY QUOTE

# 205 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Oh?

# 206 A:

They're not there.

# 207 Q:

Okay. You looked at the original negatives, right?

# 208 A:

Yes.

# 209 Q:

Okay. Why didn't you show the jury these other frames, Mr. Groden?

# 210 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, argumentative.

# 211 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 212 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Groden, these lines are caused by scratches and caused by the camera, right, Mr. Groden?

# 213 A:

I have no way of knowing that.

# 214 Q:

Right.

# 215 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you put up, please, the photograph of the back of the camera.

# 216 Q:

So that for all unique these lines are caused by the scratch caused by the camera than on the film?

# 217 A:

It can be a negative transport.

# 218 Q:

It can be a scratch?

# 219 A:

It could be.

# 220 Q:

Okay. You can recognize this, Mr. Groden?

# 221 A:

Do I recognize it?

# 222 Q:

Yeah. You know what kind of camera it is?

# 223 A:

There's no indication as to what kind it is.

# 224 Q:

You're an expert. You don't recognize it?

# 225 A:

It's a 35 millimeter SLR camera, appears to be an SLR camera.

# 226 Q:

That's all you can say about it?

# 227 A:

From what I'm seeing here.

# 228 Q:

Okay. Take as close a look as you want.

# 229 A:

It's a 35 millimeter SLR camera with the back open and has a motor drive attached at the bottom.

# 230 Q:

You recognize this as a Canon F1, the same kind of camera used by Mr. Scull to take these pictures?

# 231 A:

It may very well be.

# 232 Q:

But you don't know?

# 233 A:

No.

# 234 Q:

And the way that the film worksyou know what these are called, Mr. Groden?

# 235 A:

Film guides.

# 236 Q:

You ever heard them called rails?

# 237 A:

Could be called rails.

# 238 Q:

Okay. When the film comes across here, it's loaded on thewhat's on the left side of the screen, and it's pulled across intoit's called the take up reel

# 239 A:

Yes.

# 240 Q:

-- on the right side of the screen, and it rides on these rails in betweenI'm sorry, it rides on the two center rails in between the outer rails which are guides, correct?

# 241 A:

That's correct.

# 242 Q:

Okay. And on a Canon F1, sir, you have these rollers here, right?

# 243 A:

It's a sprocket drive.

# 244 Q:

Okay. You don't have those on all cameras, do you?

# 245 A:

You have it on most.

# 246 Q:

Okay. And when the film comes over this edge of the inside rails, there can be spurs or deformities on the edge of the metal that cause scratches, right?

# 247 A:

Absolutely.

# 248 Q:

That's what caused the scratches here, nothing about fakery, right?

# 249 MR. LEONARD:

Objection.

# 250 A:

That's an absurd thing to say. I have no idea that they came from the camera. They could havethey could have come from when they were printed.

KEY QUOTE

# 251 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Exactly. You have no idea.

# 252 A:

There's no way to determine that if you don't have the original camera.

# 253 Q:

Well, you're willing to sit here and tell the jury what it is. On Wednesday you sat here and told the jury there wasthat was evidence of fakery or something being overlaid on top of the negative, didn't you?

# 254 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, objection, argumentative.

# 255 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 256 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You have no way of knowing what it is. But I'll tell the juryyou told the jury what it was, you told the jury it was evidence of something being laid over the negative, didn't you?

# 257 A:

I said it could be.

# 258 Q:

But you have no idea.

# 259 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, argumentative, asked and answered.

# 260 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 261 A:

You asked me now if I could determine that these scratches came specifically from the camera and I said, no, I could not.

# 262 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) By the way, can you tell the jury what the structure of color film is?

# 263 A:

The structure of color film?

# 264 Q:

The structure of color film?

# 265 A:

Color film basically is an acetate base with an emulsion made up of grain with three separate layers; yellow, cyan, and magenta.

# 266 Q:

You forgot the yellow block in between the first and third layers, didn't you?

# 267 A:

There are other aspects to it as well. There are binders, things of that nature, certainly.

# 268 Q:

Okay. Now, another point that you talked to the jury about on Wednesday with Mr. Leonard, was that the photographs weren't properlythat this frame was not properly aligned with the others, right? 1

# 269 A:

That's correct.

# 270 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you put up the slide?

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Did he have a number for this?

# 271 THE CLERK:

2290.

# 272 THE COURT:

Back of a camera.

# 273 (The instrument herein described as a photograph back of a camera was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2290.)

# 274 MR. GELBLUM:

Put up the frame which was 2 of 2282. (Frame No. 2 of Exhibit 2282 displayed.)

# 275 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Remember that testimony on Wednesday, you said that wasn't aligned?

# 276 A:

That's correct.

# 277 Q:

And you also said that's the only frame in the whole roll that's not aligned, right?

# 278 A:

Correct.

# 279 Q:

And that's false?

# 280 A:

What do you mean it's false?

# 281 Q:

I mean it's false, isn't it?

# 282 A:

What are you talking about?

# 283 Q:

There are other frames that are misaligned, aren't there?

# 284 A:

No, there are not.

# 285 MR. GELBLUM:

Steve.

# 286 (BY MR. GELBLUM) I show you framesI show you and the jury the alignment of No.'s 12 and 13, same contact sheet, the picture of Mr. Simpson. (No. 12 and No. 13 displayed.)

# 287 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I object. That's a different contact sheet.

# 288 A:

It is a different contact sheet.

# 289 MR. GELBLUM:

You want to use their contact sheet.

MR. P. BAKER: We need

# 290 MR. GELBLUM:

If you give it to us we'll use it.

MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Groden. (Mr. Groden removes contact sheet from brief case.)

# 291 MR. GELBLUM:

If these are the Court exhibits, if they are, I'd like to have them all.

# 292 THE COURT:

Why does he have the exhibits?

MR. P. BAKER: WeI just

# 293 MR. PETROCELLI:

Are those the original copies?

MR. P. BAKER: We laser copied

# 294 THE COURT:

Where are the ones we used?

MR. P. BAKER: We used prints in Court.

# 295 THE CLERK:

I need a number. I don't know

MR. P. BAKER: I believe

# 296 MR. PETROCELLI:

Where are the slides he used on Wednesday?

# 297 MR. LEONARD:

The slides

# 298 MR. PETROCELLI:

What does he have in his brief case?

# 299 MR. GELBLUM:

Is this the rest of the exhibits?

# 300 ROBERT GRODEN:

Yes.

# 301 MR. GELBLUM:

May I?

# 302 THE COURT:

What exhibit are we using?

MR. P. BAKER: We're using 1924. (The clerk reviewed exhibit book.)

# 303 THE CLERK:

That's a new exhibit.

# 304 (The instrument herein referred to as contact sheet was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.1924.)

# 305 MR. LEONARD:

Is Mr. Foster using a post-it to do this? I object.

# 306 THE COURT:

What are you objecting to?

# 307 MR. LEONARD:

His using a post-it as a straight edge.

# 308 THE COURT:

So he's using a post-it. What's the problem? Is it a wrong exhibit? If it's a wrong exhibit, tell me it's a wrong exhibit.

# 309 MR. LEONARD:

No. I'm objecting to this demonstration with a post-it.

# 310 MR. PETROCELLI:

Served me well, Your Honor.

# 311 MR. LEONARD:

What?

# 312 MR. PETROCELLI:

These post-its. (Pause for counsel to review exhibits.)

# 313 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you put up on the Elmo, please, the contact sheet showing frames 12 and 13. (Contact sheet displayed.)

# 314 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you didn't use a square when you showed us, you just lined something up on the side?

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Is there a number for this?

# 315 MR. GELBLUM:

What number is this?

MR. P. BAKER: 1929.

# 316 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you see, Mr. Groden, how this is lined up along the top of this frame?

# 317 A:

That's crooked. It's diagonal. There's nothing here in this space over here. This is not accurate.

# 318 MR. GELBLUM:

Exactly. Move it up. I'm sorry. I see what you're saying.

# 319 ROBERT GRODEN:

Yes.

# 320 MR. LEONARD:

I'm going to object. This is not a valid

# 321 MR. GELBLUM:

We didn't have the right contact sheet because Mr. Groden had it in his brief case.

# 322 MR. LEONARD:

That was the original contact sheet.

# 323 THE COURT:

Will you stop that, Mr. Leonard?

# 324 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, but I object

# 325 THE COURT:

Mr. Leonard, will you stop that?

# 326 MR. LEONARD:

Yes.

# 327 THE CLERK:

For the record, that's not exhibit 1929. I don't know what number that is.

# 328 MR. GELBLUM:

We'll come back to it and deal with it.

# 329 MR. GELBLUM:

We'll come back to that when we handle the contact sheet properly.

# 330 MR. FOSTER:

1932 -- (Indicating to the clerk.) 1 2

# 331 THE COURT:

Let's take a 10-minute recess. Why don't you get your act together.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

heated

Key Quotes (5)

Peter Gelblum

Are you trying to deliberately mislead the jury?

Unusually direct attack on the expert witness; judge overruled the argumentative objection, letting it stand

Robert Groden

That's an absurd thing to say. I have no idea that they came from the camera. They could have—they could have come from when they were printed.

Groden's sharpest pushback, but it undermined his earlier direct testimony by admitting he cannot determine the cause of the blue lines

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Let's take a 10-minute recess. Why don't you get your act together.

Judge's frustration at exhibit disorganization, punctuating a session in which the defense expert was found to have Court exhibits in his own briefcase

Peter Gelblum

Like Mr. Simpson's shirt appeared pink to you?

Gelblum needled Groden's color perception after Groden claimed a line that appeared blue to others looked white to him, indirectly attacking his reliability as a photography expert

Robert Groden

They don't appear on what I was furnished with. They're not there.

Groden's defense for missing the blue lines on the other frames — implying materials he examined differed — but undermined because he also examined the original negatives

Evidence (14)

Plaintiffs' 1832

Contact sheet of Scull's photographs of OJ Simpson

displayed to establish how many Simpson images exist on the roll

Plaintiffs' 2282 (frames/slides)

Slide set including the disputed shoe photograph and other frames

displayed; used to compare blue-line anomalies across frames

Plaintiffs' 2071

Photograph of Simpson with markings

marked for identification

Plaintiffs' 2072

Horizontal photograph of Simpson

blow-up (2289) displayed to jury; Groden acknowledged blue line present but claimed different position

Plaintiffs' 2076

Another photograph of Simpson taken by Scull that day

blow-up (2288) displayed; Gelblum used to show blue lines also present on other frames

Plaintiffs' 2287

Blow-up of Exhibit 2071

marked and displayed to jury

+ 8 more

Notable Exchanges (5)

Peter Gelblum•Robert Groden

Gelblum showed Groden blow-ups of multiple other frames from the same roll, each containing blue lines between the sprocket holes and the image — the very anomaly Groden called evidence of fakery. Groden repeatedly insisted the lines were 'not the same' or in a 'different position,' but conceded they were in the same general area and same color, largely undercutting his testimony.

devastating

Peter Gelblum•Robert Groden

Exchange over whether a line on one image appeared blue or white. Gelblum asked 'Are you color-blind?' and followed up with 'Like Mr. Simpson's shirt appeared pink to you?' Groden flatly insisted the shirt in the photo is pink.

mocking

Peter Gelblum•Robert Groden

Gelblum walked Groden through how a Canon F1's film rails and sprocket drive can cause scratches on the edge of the film, getting Groden to admit he cannot determine whether the blue lines came from the camera, the printing process, or anything else — despite having told the jury they indicated forgery.

strategic

Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Leonard objected that Mr. Foster was using a post-it note as a straightedge during a demonstration. Fujisaki's response: 'So he's using a post-it. What's the problem?' Petrocelli added: 'Served me well, Your Honor. These post-its.'

absurdist

Hiroshi Fujisaki•Dan Leonard

After repeated interruptions from Leonard during the contact sheet exhibit confusion, Fujisaki twice told him 'will you stop that, Mr. Leonard?' before calling a recess.

terse

Light Moments (3)

Dan Leonard / Hiroshi Fujisaki / Daniel Petrocelli

Dan Leonard objected that Mr. Foster was using a post-it note as a straightedge. Fujisaki: 'So he's using a post-it. What's the problem?' Petrocelli: 'Served me well, Your Honor. These post-its.'

Robert Groden

Groden came down from the witness stand to personally adjust the malfunctioning Elmo projector, noted the bottom light was inferior to a top light, and fixed it himself.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Judge Fujisaki called a recess with: 'Why don't you get your act together,' after it emerged the contact sheet exhibits had been sitting in Groden's briefcase the whole time.

Credibility Attacks (5)

⚔ Robert Groden

prior inconsistent statement / omission

Gelblum showed that the blue-line anomaly Groden cited as unique to the disputed photograph also appears on other frames from the same roll, contradicting Groden's direct testimony that it was only on the one image

⚔ Robert Groden

prior inconsistent statement

Groden testified on direct that only one frame in the roll was misaligned; Gelblum challenged this using the contact sheet and showed other misaligned frames

⚔ Robert Groden

competence / bias

Gelblum asked 'Are you trying to deliberately mislead the jury?' and pressed Groden on missing basic film-scratch explanations for the anomalies, suggesting the expert either lacked competence or was shading his testimony for the defense

⚔ Robert Groden

competence

Gelblum tested Groden's knowledge of color film structure and camera mechanics, exposing gaps (incomplete description of film layers, inability to identify the Canon F1 at first glance)

⚔ Robert Groden

impeachment via adverse expert

Gelblum established that plaintiffs' own photo expert Richards found 'no indication of forgery whatsoever,' contrasting with Groden's forgery opinion

Witness Demeanor

(Witness adjusts Elmo.)

(Witness reviews blow-up.)

(Witness indicates to Elmo TV screen.)

(Witness produces slides from brief case and hands them to Mr. Gelblum.)

(Mr. Groden removes contact sheet from brief case.)

Objections

23 objections (7 sustained, 8 overruled)

Proceeding 8723 • 331 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103