Redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick

📄 Redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick — Wednesday, November 13, 1996

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 14 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Douglas W. Deedrick Re-redirect examination of Douglas W. Deedrick ▶

Witness: Douglas Deedrick
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 • Utterances: 139

Medvene used redirect to reinforce the hair comparison evidence, showing side-by-side photographs of Simpson's known hairs against questioned hairs found on Goldman's shirt and inside the Bundy knit cap. Deedrick explained his methodology as 'a subjective interpretation of objective criteria' and confirmed no other unidentified hairs or Bronco fibers were found on the victims. Medvene also extracted that no defense expert ever disagreed with Deedrick's findings, though this prompted sustained objections and partial striking of testimony.

# 1 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

# 2 Q:

You said that the -- that one of Mr. Simpson's head hairs, I believe, that you examined, was a fragment?

# 3 A:

That's right. There were several, I guess, if you look at all the evidence.

# 4 Q:

And was one that was a fragment found on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

# 5 A:

Right. That's right.

# 6 Q:

And did you feel you had an adequate sample to examine against Mr. Simpson's known hair sample?

# 7 A:

I did.

# 8 Q:

I'd ask that you put on the board what you have as No. 38, K7, Mr. Simpson's known hair sample. I believe it is on the board that we've previously looked at.

# 9 MR. GELBLUM:

On the screen or...

# 10 MR. MEDVENE:

I'm sorry, on the TV monitor.

# 11 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And would you put the fragment, which is Q23, the hair found on Mr. Goldman's shirt that Mr. Leonard asked you about that you identified as matching or the same microscopic characteristics as Mr. Simpson.

# 12 MR. LEONARD:

Asked and answered.

# 13 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 14 Q:

All right.

Now, let's do it again so we can all see it.

Mr. Leonard asked you if there was enough to analyze, to say it matched or had the same microscopic characteristics.

Let's first put up the known Hair of Mr. Simpson, the hair we knew came from his head. That's K7.

And let's run over it, Q23, which is the fragment.

# 15 (Mr. Foster complies.)

# 16 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you said they had the same microscopic characteristics, or did it matter?

# 17 A:

Well, you've already gone through that. I think it was pretty visible on one of the video things.

# 18 MR. LEONARD:

I object. This is asked and answered.

# 19 THE COURT:

You raised a fragment issue. I'm going to allow examination.

What exhibits are we looking at?

We've got two numbers. Are these exhibits court exhibit numbers?

# 20 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, Your Honor. They're on the board.

# 21 THE COURT:

Well, they're not on the board. You're showing them on the screen and you're overlaying something on top of each. What are you doing?

# 22 MR. PETROCELLI:

We'll need new numbers for those on the television, Your Honor.

# 23 THE CLERK:

2173 is next in order.

# 24 MR. PETROCELLI:

Okay.

# 25 THE COURT:

There are two exhibits.

# 26 MR. PETROCELLI:

2173 and 2174. 2173 will be K7, the known head hair from Mr. Simpson, and 2174 would be the hair found on Mr. Goldman's shirt.

# 27 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of known head hair from Mr. Simpson (K7) was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2173.)

# 28 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt (Q23) was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2174.)

# 29 THE COURT:

Which is?

# 30 MR. MEDVENE:

2174.

# 31 THE COURT:

You had a Q number.

# 32 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, sir. Q23.

# 33 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) There was -- I'm sorry; I probably interrupted you on your answer.

You were going to tell the jury -- we just run the pictures, actually, by them.

Would you just briefly describe the microscopic characteristics that caused you to say microscopic characteristics were the same and/or there -- that there was a match?

# 34 A:

When I do a comparison, that is, compare question hair with the known hair, you line up particular points along the hair with a shorter fragment, we're talking about here, that was taken off of Mr. Goldman's shirt. You'd have to make a determination of where it might fit into that known hair sample.

It's not uncommon to find fragments in cases.

In this particular one, I saw the color of the hair, the one side pigmentation, the thickness of the cuticle, the size of the pigment granules, distribution of the pigment, presence or absence of certain characteristics such as particle fusi or -- ovoid bodies, the general shape and size of the hair. Those are things basically that I use for comparison.

# 35 Q:

Now, Mr. Leonard also asked you certain of the hair that you analyzed inside the knit cap.

I'll put on the board K7 again. It's known head hair from Mr. Simpson. That's number 26.

And that will be 2175, Your Honor.

# 36 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of K7, Known Head Hair from Mr. Simpson, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2175.)

# 37 MR. MEDVENE:

And 2176 will be Q10, a hair found inside the knit hat at Bundy.

# 38 (The instrument herein referred to as a Hair found inside the knit hat at Bundy, (Q10), was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2176.)

# 39 MR. MEDVENE:

Again, let's put them on the board.

First, 2175, which is K7, the known head hair of Mr. Simpson.

# 40 (Exhibit 2175 displayed.)

# 41 MR. MEDVENE:

And Q10.

# 42 (Q10 displayed.)

# 43 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Why did you say the hairs that it's just -- again, had the same microscopic characteristics or matched?

# 44 A:

For the same reasons. It's pigmentation, thickness of the cuticle, size of the hair, distribution of the pigment, presence and absence -- and in this case, there's an absence of ovoid bodies and cortical fusi, the look of the hair, and the size -- I mentioned the size. All of them are very similar. All the questioned hairs that were matched and the known hairs were very similar to each other. It didn't matter which hair.

# 45 Q:

I'm just going to show you one more with reference to the knit hat, so it will be 2177.

# 46 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of known head hair of Mr. Simpson, No. 34, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2177.)

# 47 MR. MEDVENE:

Again, the known head hair of Mr. Simpson, which is No. 34.

And 2178, which is Q14, a hair found inside the knit cap at Bundy, which you identified as microscopically identical to Mr. Simpson's--or the same microscopic characteristics to Mr. Simpson.

# 48 (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Head Hair found in cap at Bundy, (Q14), was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2178.)

# 49 MR. MEDVENE:

Can you run that on the board once more? First the known hair of Mr. Simpson.

Now, over that, the questioned hair.

# 50 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you gave the opinion that those two hairs had the same microscopic characteristics?

# 51 A:

Yeah. Not same reasons; that is, the color, size, shape, pigmentation, distribution of pigment, streakiness of pigment, thickness of the cuticle is very thin. Size of the pigment granules, ovoid bodies, cortical fusi those are the reasons mainly.

# 52 Q:

In the 10,000 or so occasions when you've been asked to differentiate between a victim's hair and a suspect's hair, have you ever been unable to make that identification?

# 53 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 54 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 55 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to the questions we've asked you about hairs or fibers flying around, in connection with your testimony that you felt it logical that the carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco that was on the Bundy hat got there from -- probably sitting on the Bronco, is it possible that that carpet fiber from the Bronco somehow, when the window was open, flew out of the Bronco, maybe one gray day, when Mr. Simpson was driving that Bronco, flew out on its own from the Bronco, and landed on the Bundy hat sometime around the night of June 12, because the Bundy hat was just lying there at the murder scene?

Is that possible?

# 56 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

# 57 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 58 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Well, when you say that -- when you gave your explanation of what you felt was a most reasonable explanation of how carpet fiber from -- identical to that in Mr. Simpson's Bronco found its way to the Bundy hat, the hat found at the murder scene, having the same carpet fiber as Mr. Simpson's Bronco, why did you say that was the logical -- or why did you believe that what was found at Bundy had had some contact with Mr. Simpson's Bronco?

# 59 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, that misstates his evidence. He said several times --

# 60 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection to speaking objection.

# 61 MR. LEONARD:

It misstates what he testified to.

I will approach the side bar if I need to. Absolutely misstates what he said.

# 62 THE COURT:

I'll sustain the objection.

# 63 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. Deedrick, do you have any reason to believe that the carpet fiber from Mr. Simpson's Bronco somehow flew out the window and landed on a hat that was found at Bundy, that we referred to as the Bundy hat?

# 64 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 65 THE COURT:

I think I'll allow it. I don't know what kind of a probative question that is; it has no probative value at all.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you answer the question, please. The Court permitted you to answer.

# 66 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

Oh, I.

# 67 THE COURT:

It's like asking, is anything possible.

KEY QUOTE

# 68 MR. MEDVENE:

That's what Mr. Leonard asked, is anything possible.

# 69 MR. LEONARD:

Oh, Your Honor, I --

# 70 THE COURT:

Excuse me. The question is, is anything possible in terms of how the fiber got on the hat.

# 71 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

Should I answer that question, Your Honor?

# 72 THE COURT:

I guess so. That's what the question is.

# 73 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Deedrick, could you tell us, in your experience of 18 years or so doing this work, what do you -- what is your opinion as to how the transfer was made of the carpet fiber identical to that in Mr. Simpson's Bronco to the Bundy hat and the Rockingham glove?

# 74 MR. LEONARD:

Misstates his testimony and it's been asked and answered.

# 75 THE COURT:

Well, we will take a noon recess.

1:30.

And, Mr. Medvene, why don't you work on that question.

# 76 (At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

# 77 (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

# 78 (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

# 79 (The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the jury:)

# 80 THE CLERK:

You're still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record?

# 81 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

Douglas W. Deedrick.

# 82 THE CLERK:

Thank you.

# 83 THE COURT:

Okay.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

# 84 Q:

Agent Deedrick, you referred to your work and examination this morning as a combination, and part of our -- the combination, the part of science. Could you tell us what you meant by that?

# 85 A:

Well, hair analysis, especially with hair analysis, it's a subjective interpretation of objective criteria.

What that -- what that means is you make a determination as to the value or the identity of a particular structure based upon the way they look, based upon their scientific biological appearance, through a microscope.

So it's a combination of both. A lot of the subjectivity or art, as some people refer to it, comes into determining the value of something, what it's worth. And that has a basis. In experience, you have to take that into consideration with all the hairs that you've seen, all the case work that you've seen. So it is a combination of both.

KEY QUOTE

# 86 Q:

Now, Mr. Leonard, in questioning, talked about the possibility of human hairs or fibers, or Bronco fibers, floating around in the air and I just want to pick up, 'cause of time, just a couple items. With respect --

# 87 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I object to the preamble. It misstates my questions to this witness.

# 88 THE COURT:

I think you talked about floating hairs. Overruled.

# 89 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect -- with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt, did you find any human hairs, other than those that you testified to, in your opinion, matched the known samples of Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson?

# 90 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I object. It's beyond the scope and also, once again, there's a lack of foundation.

# 91 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 92 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

I did not. I found no other hairs.

# 93 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) With respect to Mr. Goldman's pants, did you find any hairs from anyone other than Nicole Brown and possibly Ronald Goldman?

# 94 A:

Again, what was the item?

# 95 Q:

When on -- on Ronald Goldman pants?

# 96 A:

On his pants, no. And again, we're referring to hairs, comparable type hairs?

# 97 Q:

Yes?

# 98 A:

Yes.

# 99 Q:

Did you find any Bronco fibers that floated down on Mr. Goldman's shirt that you were able to identify?

# 100 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 102 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

On his shirt?

# 103 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes.

# 104 MR. LEONARD:

Calls for speculation as well.

# 105 THE COURT:

Overruled. Floated down, yes. Sustained on that.

# 106 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Were there any Bronco fibers identified on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

# 107 A:

No.

# 108 Q:

Any on his pants?

# 109 A:

No.

# 110 Q:

With respect, there's questions about the Bundy glove. Did you find any other human hairs on the Bundy glove other than those that matched Nicole Brown Simpson?

# 111 A:

I did not.

# 112 Q:

Did you share the hair and fiber evidence that you testified about, underlying slides, all the evidence regarding matches, did you share that with Mr. Simpson's defense expert?

# 113 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, Your Honor. Outside the scope and irrelevant.

# 114 THE COURT:

Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you -- did you make available and give to Mr. Simpson's defense expert all the underlying material from which you testified to today?

# 115 MR. LEONARD:

Same objections, Your Honor. I move to strike the question at this point.

# 116 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 117 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

Yes. All that material was made available and it was examined. I understand he agreed with me.

KEY QUOTE

# 118 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I move to strike the last response.

# 119 THE COURT:

Everything stricken except "yes."

# 120 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did any expert, to your knowledge, ever disagree with any of the findings that you testified to.

# 121 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I move to strike.

# 122 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 123 MR. LEONARD:

I ask the jury be admonished at this point.

# 124 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court --

# 125 THE COURT:

Disregard the question.

# 126 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, Mr. Leonard talked about --

# 127 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, please. I don't want speaking objections in front of the jury. If Your Honor --

# 128 MR. MEDVENE:

Your Honor, may we approach the bench, Your Honor?

# 129 THE COURT:

No. The objection is sustained.

# 130 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Mr. Leonard asked you a general question, not about this case, but about, do experts ever disagree, and I'm asking you, did the defense expert who had your material or any other expert ever disagree with you on any of the results you testified to today about matches?

# 131 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I move to strike once again. Objection. Irrelevant.

# 132 THE COURT:

I think --

# 133 MR. LEONARD:

Calls for hearsay.

# 134 THE COURT:

You opened the door on that one, overruled.

# 135 DOUGLAS DEEDRICK:

No, no one disagreed with the results that I came up to.

KEY QUOTE

# 136 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Did you report out -- is the policy of the FBI to ever report out on batch, as you reported in this case, if that match is not confirmed, within your unit by at least one other hair and fiber examiner?

# 137 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Beyond the scope, asked and answered.

# 138 THE COURT:

Asked on direct. Overruled -- Sustained.

# 139 MR. MEDVENE:

I have nothing further.

Thank you very much, Agent Deedrick.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Douglas W. Deedrick

hair analysis, especially with hair analysis, it's a subjective interpretation of objective criteria.

Deedrick proactively addressed the defense's art-vs-science attack on hair analysis, framing his methodology as grounded but experience-dependent.

Douglas W. Deedrick

No, no one disagreed with the results that I came up to.

After Leonard opened the door by asking generally whether experts disagree, Fujisaki allowed Medvene to ask specifically about this case — and the answer flatly undercut any suggestion of expert doubt.

Douglas W. Deedrick

All that material was made available and it was examined. I understand he agreed with me.

The second half was immediately stricken on Leonard's motion, but the jury heard it — a classic high-risk moment for the defense in trying to suppress favorable testimony.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

It's like asking, is anything possible.

Fujisaki telegraphed his skepticism of Medvene's 'could the fiber have flown out the window' question even while allowing it, effectively neutralizing the rhetorical point.

Evidence (9)

Plaintiffs' 2173 (K7)

Photograph of Simpson's known head hair

introduced and displayed for comparison

Plaintiffs' 2174 (Q23)

Photograph of hair fragment found on Ronald Goldman's shirt

introduced and overlaid against K7 for comparison

Plaintiffs' 2175 (K7)

Second photograph of Simpson's known head hair for cap comparison

introduced

Plaintiffs' 2176 (Q10)

Hair found inside the knit hat at Bundy

introduced and displayed

Plaintiffs' 2177

Photograph of Simpson's known head hair No. 34

introduced

Plaintiffs' 2178 (Q14)

Hair found inside the knit cap at Bundy, identified as microscopically matching Simpson

introduced and overlaid for comparison

+ 3 more

Notable Exchanges (4)

Hiroshi Fujisaki•Edward Medvene•Dan Leonard

Medvene asked whether Bronco carpet fiber could have 'flown out the window' and landed on the Bundy hat. Fujisaki allowed it but immediately undercut its rhetorical force by saying 'It's like asking, is anything possible,' prompting Medvene to pivot to a cleaner formulation after the noon recess.

sardonic

Douglas W. Deedrick•Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Deedrick volunteered that the defense expert 'agreed with me' after confirming material was made available. Leonard moved to strike; Fujisaki stricken everything except 'yes' — but the jury had already heard the admission.

strategic

Edward Medvene•Dan Leonard•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Medvene attempted to ask whether any expert ever disagreed with Deedrick's findings. Leonard objected on hearsay and irrelevance; Fujisaki overruled, citing Leonard having 'opened the door' by asking generically about expert disagreement on cross.

revealing

Edward Medvene•Dan Leonard

Repeated clashes over speaking objections — both sides accused the other of improper advocacy in front of the jury, culminating in Leonard demanding the jury be admonished after the stricken 'agreed with me' answer.

heated

Light Moments (1)

Douglas W. Deedrick

The witness, confused about whether to answer Fujisaki's rhetorical reframing of the flying-fiber question, asked 'Should I answer that question, Your Honor?' — prompting Fujisaki to reply 'I guess so.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Douglas W. Deedrick

methodology challenge (science vs. art)

Leonard's cross had raised the subjectivity of hair analysis; Medvene used redirect to have Deedrick characterize it as 'a subjective interpretation of objective criteria,' blunting the attack.

⚔ Douglas W. Deedrick

fragment adequacy challenge

Leonard had questioned whether a hair fragment (Q23 on Goldman's shirt) was sufficient for a reliable comparison; Medvene addressed this directly by having Deedrick display the fragment against the known sample and explain his criteria.

Objections

17 objections (8 sustained, 8 overruled)

Proceeding 8241 • 139 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103