Re-redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick

📄 Re-redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick — Wednesday, November 13, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\13\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DOU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 14 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick Re-redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick (part 2) ▶

Witness: Douglas Deedrick
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 • Utterances: 26

Defense attorney Dan Leonard conducted a brief recross of FBI hair and fiber expert Douglas Deedrick, focusing on two points: (1) whether a blanket brought from the Bundy residence and spread at the crime scene could account for hair and fiber transfer, and (2) using a chart to establish what hair and fibers were NOT found — specifically setting up the question of whether any hair consistent with OJ Simpson was found on the Bundy glove. The transcript cuts off before Deedrick answers the final question.

# 1 Q:

Agent Deedrick, you were asked on redirect examination about hairs and fibers floating through the air.

Let's me ask you this: If a blanket was brought out of the residence at Bundy, introduced into the crime scene and spread out, in the environment of the crime scene, before all these articles were collected, could that very possibly account for some of the hairs and fibers that I've identified that have been spread around the crime scene?

# 2 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope and assuming facts not in evidence.

# 3 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 4 MR. MEDVENE:

And no foundation.

# 5 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 6 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

It could -- it depends what's on the surface of the blanket.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you.

# 8 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I want to make sure it's perfectly clear to the jury what you were showing them when you showed them on redirect examination, some 250 times blown up, photographs. I want to make sure they understand what you were doing.

# 9 MR. MEDVENE:

The Court, please --

# 10 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 11 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Those photographs that you showed, they represent a very small minute portion of the hair that -- hairs that you examined, correct?

# 12 A:

That's right, it does.

# 13 Q:

In fact, the hair that -- the hairs that you examined, were how long -- I'm talking about on the redirect.

# 14 THE COURT:

Sustained my objection. You've been through this on your cross already.

# 15 MR. LEONARD:

But Your Honor, he went into it on detail in redirect.

# 16 THE COURT:

Just sustained on redirect.

# 17 MR. LEONARD:

Excuse me?

# 18 THE COURT:

I'll sustain my objection.

KEY QUOTE

# 19 MR. LEONARD:

Can you put the chart up?

# 20 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) On redirect, you were asked about items that weren't found, correct?

You were asked about items of hair and fibers that weren't found on various items in the crime scene. Do you remember that?

# 21 A:

I do.

# 22 Q:

Now, you've seen this chart before, haven't you?

# 23 A:

I have, yes.

# 24 Q:

And that chart, at least this portion of it, accurately represents some of the things that were found and weren't found; is that correct?

# 25 A:

It does represent some of the things, yes.

# 26 Q:

Okay. So you would agree that there was no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson found on the Bundy glove, correct?

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dan Leonard

If a blanket was brought out of the residence at Bundy, introduced into the crime scene and spread out, in the environment of the crime scene, before all these articles were collected, could that very possibly account for some of the hairs and fibers that I've identified that have been spread around the crime scene?

Leonard is advancing a contamination theory — that LAPD's own actions (introducing a blanket) could explain the hair and fiber evidence Deedrick found at the scene.

Douglas Deedrick

It could -- it depends what's on the surface of the blanket.

A partial concession under oath — the expert acknowledges the contamination scenario is possible, qualifying it only by the blanket's contents.

Dan Leonard

So you would agree that there was no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson found on the Bundy glove, correct?

The climactic question of the recross — using the chart to pin down a key absence of evidence. The transcript cuts off before the answer.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I'll sustain my objection.

Fujisaki sustains his own sua sponte objection — blocking Leonard from re-plowing cross-examination ground on the redirect photographs, a notable procedural moment where the judge cuts off the defense.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Chart showing hair and fiber items found and not found at the crime scene

displayed to jury, Deedrick confirms accuracy

Informal

250x magnification photographs of hairs shown by prosecution on redirect

referenced by Leonard to challenge the representativeness of the images shown to the jury

Informal

Bundy glove

referenced in final question — whether any hair consistent with OJ Simpson was found on it

Informal

Blanket from Bundy residence

hypothetically referenced as potential source of crime scene hair/fiber contamination

Notable Exchanges (2)

Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Fujisaki sua sponte sustains an objection blocking Leonard from revisiting the redirect photograph testimony. Leonard pushes back — 'But Your Honor, he went into it in detail on redirect' — and Fujisaki simply restates the ruling. Leonard then asks for clarification ('Excuse me?') before moving on.

tense

Dan Leonard•Douglas Deedrick

Leonard gets Deedrick to acknowledge the blanket contamination scenario is possible, then pivots to the chart to lock in the absence of OJ-consistent hair on the Bundy glove.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

scope limitation / representativeness challenge

Leonard challenges the jury impression left by Deedrick's 250x photographs on redirect, arguing they represented only a 'very small minute portion' of the hairs examined — implying the prosecution selectively showcased favorable evidence.

Objections

4 objections (2 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8242 • 26 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103