Redirect examination of Ronald A. Fischman

📄 Redirect examination of Ronald A. Fischman — Wednesday, December 4, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\4\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-RONALD.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 25 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Ronald A. Fischman Recross-examination of Ronald A. Fischman ▶

Witness: Ronald Fischman
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, December 4, 1996 • Utterances: 46

Plaintiff attorney Michael Brewer conducts a brief redirect of Dr. Ronald Fischman, attempting to reframe Nicole's 'erratic behavior' as avoidance of OJ rather than instability, and to establish that Fischman observed tension between Nicole and OJ at the recital. Defense attorney Dan Leonard successfully objects to multiple questions as speculation, and the judge is noticeably curt when Leonard attempts to approach the bench.

# 1 Q:

Dr. Fischman, the erratic behavior that we talked about, by erratic behavior we're talking about Nicole avoiding O.J. Simpson, true?

# 2 A:

Yes, at times.

# 3 Q:

We're talking about her not returning phone calls, true?

# 4 A:

Yes.

# 5 Q:

We're talking about her being short on the telephone with Mr. Simpson, true?

# 6 A:

True.

# 7 Q:

We're talking about her being difficult to him, true?

# 8 A:

Yes, true.

# 9 Q:

That may be what he meant when he said she was acting erratically, correct?

KEY QUOTE

# 10 A:

I believe so.

# 11 Q:

Now, the conversation about Nicole's anger relative to the IRS letter, you just happened to walk in the kitchen when Nicole was talking to Cora about that issue; is that correct?

# 12 A:

I believe that's the case, yes.

# 13 Q:

And so the only thing that you heard was what you happened to overhear as a result of -- by happenstance, being in the kitchen when they were talking about it, true?

# 14 A:

It was my kitchen. I was getting ready to go to work so, yes, that's what I heard.

# 15 Q:

Now, you didn't stay for the entire conversation, did you?

# 16 A:

I don't recall, to be quite honest.

# 17 Q:

If Nicole mentioned fears that she had --

# 18 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, speculation.

# 19 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 20 MR. LEONARD:

You know what, Your Honor, if we could approach --

# 21 THE COURT:

No.

# 22 MR. LEONARD:

Because he knows how speculating --

# 23 THE COURT:

Excuse me.

Just finish your examination.

# 24 MR. BREWER:

Thank you, Your Honor, I appreciate that.

# 25 Q:

(BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, with respect to the recital, you did have conversation with Mr. Simpson where you had an opportunity to observe how he appeared, and how he was feeling that day, true?

# 26 A:

There were two periods, one was the conversation that we had for 5 or 10 minutes in the lobby, as I mentioned earlier, and the second one was what you saw on the videotape.

# 27 Q:

So you had 15, 20 minutes, maybe longer, maybe shorter, of time and interaction with Mr. Simpson that day, where you could assess the things that you described about his appearance and demeanor, true?

# 28 A:

Yes.

# 29 Q:

And inside the auditorium, you anticipated from what you knew about Nicole's state of mind and Mr. Simpson's state of mind that there would be some tension between them that day, didn't you?

# 30 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, speculation.

# 31 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 32 MR. LEONARD:

Irrelevant.

# 33 THE COURT:

Not irrelevant. Speculation. Sustained.

# 34 Q:

(BY MR. BREWER) Well, when you got to the auditorium and you looked back, you were looking back, albeit briefly, to see if there was any tension between Mr. Simpson and Nicole, true?

# 35 A:

No. I didn't specifically look to see if there was any tension, no.

KEY QUOTE

# 36 Q:

But you made that -- you made an observation that there was a chilling between them, that's what you testified to at your deposition at that time, true?

# 37 A:

No.

# 38 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. That calls for speculation.

That question was specifically ruled on before and the objection was sustained, Your Honor. It was an improper question.

Ask that it be stricken.

# 39 THE COURT:

Stricken.

# 40 Q:

(BY MR. BREWER) Inside the auditorium did you look back and make observations about Nicole?

# 41 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, asked and answered three times.

# 42 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 43 Q:

(BY MR. BREWER) Did Nicole ever talk to you about Mr. Simpson beating her in 1989?

# 44 A:

No.

# 45 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, beyond the scope.

# 46 MR. BREWER:

Nothing further.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Michael Brewer

That may be what he meant when he said she was acting erratically, correct?

Plaintiff reframes OJ's own characterization of Nicole's behavior as evidence of her fear and avoidance, not instability.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

No.

Single-word denial of Leonard's request to approach the bench — followed by 'Excuse me. Just finish your examination.' Fujisaki's impatience with both sides on display.

Ronald A. Fischman

No. I didn't specifically look to see if there was any tension, no.

Fischman contradicts the direction of Brewer's questioning, denying he was watching for tension at the recital.

Ronald A. Fischman

No.

Direct denial that Nicole ever told him OJ beat her in 1989 — the final question of the examination and a clean close for the defense.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Videotape of Sydney's recital, previously introduced

referenced to establish duration of Fischman's observation of OJ that day

Notable Exchanges (2)

Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Leonard asks to approach after a speculation objection is sustained; Fujisaki cuts him off with 'No,' then 'Excuse me. Just finish your examination.' Leonard had begun explaining his reasoning and was shut down mid-sentence.

tense

Michael Brewer•Ronald A. Fischman•Dan Leonard

Brewer attempts to use Fischman's deposition to establish he observed a 'chilling' between Nicole and OJ at the recital; Leonard objects as speculation and notes the question had already been ruled on; Fujisaki sustains and strikes the answer.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Ronald A. Fischman

prior inconsistent statement (deposition)

Brewer attempted to use Fischman's deposition testimony to show he described a 'chilling' between OJ and Nicole at the recital, contradicting his trial testimony. The question was struck after Leonard's objection was sustained.

Objections

5 objections (4 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8457 • 46 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103