Cross-examination of Randall Petee (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Randall Petee (part 2) — Wednesday, December 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\4\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-RANDALL-P.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 25 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Randall Petee (part 1) Motion: reconsider Fuhrman testimony ruling ▶

Witness: Randy Petee
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, December 4, 1996 • Utterances: 99

Defense attorney Robert Baker cross-examined Mr. Petee, a witness who conducted a route-timing exercise for the plaintiffs' attorneys, driving from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham. Baker challenged the exercise as lawyer-scripted rather than an objective fastest-route analysis, and attacked the credibility of the 'accelerated speed' runs by highlighting that Petee drove at freeway speeds (~60 mph) on San Vicente while labeling it 'reasonable.' Baker also discovered Petee had destroyed his handwritten notes, prompting the judge to order Petee to return the next morning with the memorandum of instructions from the law firm.

# 1 A:

No.

# 2 Q:

Okay.

You parked on -- were you told to park on the street?

Somebody tell you don't walk -- park behind the house of 875, park out on Dorothy and point your vehicle towards the east, or Bundy, as you commenced this little exercise?

# 3 A:

That's what I was told.

# 4 Q:

Who told you that?

# 5 A:

It came from the law office.

# 6 Q:

Who told you that?

# 7 A:

Specifically, I don't know.

# 8 Q:

So did you get a memorandum as to how the little exercise was going to be undertaken?

# 9 A:

I was given -- regarding the routes of travel.

# 10 Q:

You have that with you?

# 11 A:

No.

# 12 Q:

Why not?

# 13 A:

I --

# 14 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant that he doesn't have it.

# 15 THE COURT:

It's a question. He's asking him why he doesn't have it.

# 16 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Somebody tell you not to bring it, Mr. Petee?

# 17 (No verbal response.)

# 18 Q:

Oh, so when you come back tomorrow, can you bring that with you?

# 19 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. I don't know he's coming back tomorrow.

# 20 MR. BAKER:

I think so.

# 21 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Petee, when you were told, then, to park your vehicle, and you were on the south side of Dorothy, heading east -- is that correct, sir?

# 22 A:

Yes.

# 23 Q:

You were told then to go east on Dorothy and then go south on Bundy, correct?

# 24 A:

Yes.

# 25 Q:

And you, of course, knew that your final destination in this time period that you knew was crucial, was to the north, true?

# 26 A:

Yes.

# 27 Q:

And so you certainly knew from reviewing the Thomas Guide, that the quickest way, if you were going to get from 875 South Bundy, would be either to turn right on Dorothy and go up Gretna Green and then take an alternate route up to Ashford and Rockingham, but not to go south, correct?

# 28 A:

Can you repeat that again.

# 29 Q:

Sure.

If you had to get from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham from dot A to dot B, you're sure, and you -- and you're under instructions, given no routes whatsoever, you were requested to get from point A to point B as quick as you can, you sure wouldn't turn right on Bundy, would you?

# 30 A:

No.

# 31 Q:

In fact, if you were parked in an alley and you had committed some heinous crime, would you either turn around in the alley and go in --

Well, strike that.

If you were parked in the alley behind 875 South Bundy and wanted to get to Ashford as quickly as possible, and your car was headed in a southerly direction, you would either go out the alley to Dorothy, take an immediate right, take another immediate right, and go north on Gretna Green, right?

# 32 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. No foundation.

# 33 THE COURT:

Objection sustained.

This witness was only asked what his times were and what his routes were, not asked for an evaluation.

# 34 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you -- in arriving at the routes, did you have any input into this, or did this all come with direction from the Law Offices of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp?

# 35 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Asked and answered.

# 36 THE COURT:

Overruled. That wasn't asked.

# 37 A:

The assignment came from the law firm.

# 38 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You had no discretion as to how you could alter the vehicle [sic] and get from the lower red dot to the upper red dot, correct?

# 39 THE COURT:

Alter the vehicle?

# 40 MR. BAKER:

I'm sorry; I apologize if I said alter the vehicle.

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Alter the route to get from the dot on Bundy to the dot on Rockingham?

# 42 A:

No.

# 43 Q:

Okay.

Now, in arriving -- in looking at it, did you ask anybody why these particular routes were chosen, as contrasted to some other way to get from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham?

# 44 A:

No.

# 45 Q:

Did you suggest to anyone that, for example, in your route 3, when you're over here, coming up Cliffwood --

This is Cliffwood right here, isn't it, where my -- (indicating) you can just see the wood up here, the map is --

# 46 A:

Yes.

# 47 Q:

-- a little.

Okay.

Did you suggest to anyone, if you wanted the quickest way to get to -- off San Vicente to Clifford to Rockingham, would be to turn left off Ashford?

# 48 MR. GELBLUM:

The witness testified he followed instructions; that's all he did.

# 49 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 50 MR. BAKER:

I'm asking him if he asked anyone --

# 51 THE COURT:

The only testimony on direct, he took the routes, gave the times. That's it.

# 52 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, as I understand your testimony, then, knowing that time was critical, the first -- the first route that you were ordered to take by the plaintiffs' lawyers, you made in six minutes and 37 seconds. That's the total lapsed time of the first trip, correct?

# 53 A:

Yes.

# 54 Q:

And then you chopped that by a third.

In other words, you chopped more than two minutes and a half off of the elapsed time by sticking your foot in it, right?

In other words, when you did the same route on the second trip, you had, I think, elapsed time of four minutes and six seconds, true?

# 55 A:

True.

# 56 Q:

So you took off over two and a half minutes in a six-and-a-half-minute trip, right?

# 57 A:

Yes.

# 58 Q:

And then you put next to it, traveling at accelerated and reasonable speed -- those are your words, are they not?

# 59 A:

Yes.

# 60 Q:

You think it's reasonable to run down San Vicente at 60 miles an hour?

# 61 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant. What's relevant?

# 62 THE COURT:

What's reasonable to him is irrelevant. Sustained.

# 63 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you would agree with me that you weren't traveling at reasonable speeds, even though that's what you put on your notes, correct?

# 64 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 65 THE COURT:

Overruled. That's why you put on this witness.

# 66 A:

That particular roadway will handle freeway speeds.

KEY QUOTE

# 67 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You think it's okay, it's reasonable to go 60 miles an hour, right?

# 68 A:

That's how fast I was able to go.

# 69 Q:

Okay.

And do you have handwritten notes indicating what the speed was at the times that you made these passes last Sunday night?

# 70 A:

No. My notes were drafted into this form right here.

# 71 Q:

What did you do with the handwritten notes?

# 72 A:

They're destroyed.

# 73 Q:

Why?

# 74 A:

I custom --

# 75 Q:

Well, you knew you were going to come and sit on this witness stand, did you not, sir?

You knew that was the whole purpose of the Sunday night exercise, wasn't it?

# 76 A:

Yes.

# 77 Q:

Now, your route to -- you took over a minute and a half off by traveling at your accelerated speeds, correct?

# 78 A:

I'm sorry?

# 79 Q:

Routes 2. You dropped the time over a minute and a half by sticking your foot in it again, didn't you?

# 80 A:

Yes.

# 81 Q:

And did you get up to over 60 on San Vicente on that trip?

# 82 A:

I don't believe so.

# 83 Q:

Did -- on route 3, when you dropped two minutes again, a third of the time off of that, did you go over 60 on San Vicente at this point in time?

# 84 A:

I don't believe I went over 60.

# 85 Q:

Now, you were told in your directions, I take it, sir, that you were to rush, correct, on the second trip?

# 86 A:

I was not told to rush.

# 87 Q:

You were told to get the elapsed time between 875 South Bundy, after you turned and went south on Bundy, as low as you could. True?

# 88 A:

As fast as I could.

# 89 Q:

As fast as you could, right?

# 90 A:

Within -- within reason.

# 91 Q:

As fast as you could, because you knew the time was critical and crucial, true?

# 92 A:

True.

# 93 MR. BAKER:

I would ask that the witness be requested to return tomorrow with the -- with the memorandum.

# 94 MR. GELBLUM:

I object. There's no reason.

# 95 MR. PETROCELLI:

I would ask Mr. Baker put his foot to it and try to finish the witness up.

KEY QUOTE

# 96 MR. BAKER:

I want to see the memorandum and the order that was given to this witness by these lawyers.

# 97 MR. GELBLUM:

He has no right to see that, Your Honor. This witness is a five minute witness that's been strung out by Mr. Baker for 20 minutes here.

# 98 THE COURT:

Well, I think he's entitled to see what directions -- the directions were. Overruled.

And the witness is ordered to produce the document, be here tomorrow at 8:30.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're excused until 8:30.

Don't form or express any opinions. Don't conduct any experiments on your own.

KEY QUOTE

# 99 (At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, December 5, 1996, at 8:30 A.M.)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

They're destroyed.

Petee admits he destroyed his handwritten notes from the timing exercise, raising spoliation concerns and undercutting the reliability of his documented results.

Witness

That particular roadway will handle freeway speeds.

Petee's defense of driving ~60 mph on San Vicente undercuts the label 'reasonable speed' used in his notes, which Baker exploits to discredit the exercise.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Well, I think he's entitled to see what directions -- the directions were. Overruled. And the witness is ordered to produce the document, be here tomorrow at 8:30.

Judge sides with Baker's demand to see the law firm's instructions, ordering production of the memorandum over plaintiffs' objection.

Daniel Petrocelli

I would ask Mr. Baker put his foot to it and try to finish the witness up.

Plaintiffs' lead counsel's sardonic use of Baker's own 'foot in it' phrasing signals frustration with the extended cross.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Route timing notes/report prepared by Petee documenting elapsed times for three routes from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham

discussed and challenged

Informal

Memorandum of instructions from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp law firm to Petee regarding how to conduct the exercise

requested by Baker; Petee did not have it; judge ordered production

Informal

Thomas Guide map referenced to show faster alternate routes existed

referenced verbally by Baker

Informal

Handwritten notes from Sunday night timing exercise

Baker asked about them; Petee admitted they were destroyed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker presses Petee on why he destroyed his handwritten notes after knowing he would testify, leaving the witness unable to explain.

revealing

Robert Baker•Peter Gelblum•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker demands the law firm memorandum; Gelblum objects calling Petee 'a five minute witness strung out for 20 minutes'; Fujisaki sides with Baker and orders production.

heated

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker forces Petee to admit he cut over two and a half minutes off a six-and-a-half minute route by driving as fast as he could, while his notes called it 'accelerated and reasonable speed.'

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Judge Fujisaki interrupts Baker mid-question to repeat back 'Alter the vehicle?' — catching Baker's own verbal slip before he corrects himself.

Daniel Petrocelli

Petrocelli tells Baker to 'put his foot to it' — turning Baker's own repeated phrase ('sticking your foot in it') back on him sarcastically.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Petee

destruction of notes / spoliation

Baker established that Petee destroyed his handwritten notes from the timing exercise despite knowing he would testify, undermining the integrity of the documented results.

⚔ Petee

bias / lack of independent judgment

Baker established that every aspect of the exercise — routes, starting position, direction of travel — was dictated by the plaintiffs' law firm, with Petee having no independent discretion.

⚔ Petee

internal inconsistency

Baker contrasted Petee's documented label of 'accelerated and reasonable speed' with his admission that he drove at ~60 mph on San Vicente and was instructed to go as fast as he could.

Witness Demeanor

(No verbal response.) — when asked if someone told him not to bring the memorandum

Objections

9 objections (4 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 8485 • 99 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103