Cross-examination of John Edwards (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of John Edwards (part 1) — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-JOHN-EDWA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Sidebar: cross-examination scope Procedural pause ▶

Witness: Det. John Edwards
Examiner: John Kelly
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 108

Defense attorney Dan Leonard cross-examines LAPD Detective John Edwards about the January 1, 1989 domestic violence call to the Rockingham estate. Leonard methodically attacks two inconsistencies: key details about both Nicole and O.J. independently citing 'eight' prior police visits that appear nowhere in the contemporaneous report, and Edwards' claim at this trial that Nicole had no alcohol on her breath, which contradicts his own criminal trial testimony where he admitted he could not remember.

# 1 Q:

I'll try to stay behind the podium this time, Your Honor.

Detective Edwards, what did you do to prepare for your testimony today?

What items did you read?

Whom did you talk to?

What did you do?

# 2 A:

Let's see.

Yesterday, I met with plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Kelly, for about 45 minutes, approximately three, four blocks from this court. And he just asked me a few questions, and I reviewed my report.

And then I met again today with Mr. Kelly for about ten or fifteen minutes prior to walking over here to the court.

# 3 Q:

Did you look at your prior testimony from the criminal trial?

# 4 A:

I browsed through that, yes.

# 5 Q:

Browsed through it?

# 6 A:

Yes, highlighted.

# 7 Q:

How much time did you spend looking at it?

# 8 A:

Approximately ten, fifteen minutes.

# 9 Q:

Did you look at both the direct and the cross-examinations?

# 10 A:

Briefly.

# 11 Q:

Well, did you want to make sure that you gave testimony that was basically consistent with your criminal trial testimony, or did you want to make sure of that when you looked at the transcript of your prior testimony?

# 12 A:

Yes, somewhat.

# 13 Q:

Did you know anything -- after having sat up here and answered some questions before lunch, did you think about at lunch whether there was anything inconsistent that you had testified in your direct examination from what you had stated in your criminal trial testimony?

Did you think about that?

# 14 MR. KELLY:

Objection as to form.

# 15 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Did you consider that, sir?

# 16 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 17 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

No.

# 18 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that you looked -- that you also reviewed your report. And I assume you're referring to the basically contemporaneous report that was prepared by your partner?

# 19 A:

Not only that, my subsequent supplemental report.

# 20 Q:

What Mr. Kelly was referring to is Exhibit 1291. That was a report that was prepared what, the next day?

# 21 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's 2191.

# 22 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Excuse me, 2191.

That was prepared on what, the 1st of January 1989?

# 23 A:

The day of the occurrence.

# 24 Q:

Okay.

You mentioned that you had asked your partner -- and what was her name again?

# 25 A:

Patricia Milewski.

# 26 Q:

She's still a police officer?

# 27 A:

Yes, she is. She is instructing at the police academy.

# 28 Q:

Here in Los Angeles?

# 29 A:

Yes.

# 30 Q:

Okay. You instructed her to prepare a report, correct?

# 31 A:

That's correct.

# 32 Q:

And you wanted that report to be -- to completely and accurately represent what had occurred just hours before, correct?

# 33 A:

Yes.

# 34 Q:

And in fact, you reviewed it to make sure everything that was in there was accurate and that there was a complete description of what had occurred; isn't that right, sir?

# 35 A:

Yes.

# 36 Q:

That was important because this was going to memorialize what had occurred; and you wanted to make sure, for instance, if you had to testify sometime in the future, that it would be accurate and would be complete, correct?

# 37 A:

That's correct.

# 38 Q:

All right. That's something that you do on a daily basis as a police officer, right?

# 39 A:

Yes.

# 40 Q:

You realize how important accurate and complete reports are, don't you, Officer?

# 41 A:

Yes. That's why we --

# 42 MR. KELLY:

Objection.

# 43 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

-- quite often make supplemental reports, to bring out details that we may have forgotten in the original report. And we do that quite often.

# 44 Q:

Okay.

But in any event, you took the time to review the report that your partner had prepared; and, in fact, you said you made some additions, right?

# 45 A:

Yes.

# 46 Q:

Okay.

You described in some detail discussions that you had with both Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, referring to other times that the police allegedly had been out to Rockingham, correct?

Do you remember that in your direct testimony?

# 47 A:

Yes.

# 48 Q:

And in fact, if you recall, both Nicole Brown Simpson, and minutes later, O.J. Simpson, used the same exact language, basically, didn't they?

Let me --

# 49 A:

Close, but not quite.

# 50 Q:

Let me refresh your recollection.

Didn't they both say, according to you, you guys have been out here eight times before?

First Nicole said that; minutes later, O.J. Simpson said that. Do you remember testifying to that?

# 51 A:

Right. They both said that in a sentence, but the sentence was different.

# 52 Q:

Focusing on the number, they both said the number eight, didn't they?

# 53 A:

Yes.

# 54 Q:

Not ten, not several, not many, but the number eight, right?

KEY QUOTE

# 55 A:

Exactly.

# 56 Q:

Now, I want to you take a look at what's been marked as 2191.

Show me in that report where there's any indication of any discussion about police being out there on prior occasions.

And this is a report that was prepared at your behest, reviewed by you the next day, correct?

# 57 A:

Yes. It doesn't have the original report. It's in the supplemental.

# 58 Q:

Now, when you reviewed that report, did you remember that it wasn't in there and suggest that it be in there?

Did you remember at the time when you reviewed the report the next day?

# 59 A:

It wasn't the next day; it was the same day, January 1, 1989.

# 60 Q:

And all events were fresh in your mind, correct?

# 61 A:

That's right.

# 62 Q:

Much fresher than they were when you did a supplemental report a month and a half later, right?

Wouldn't you agree with that?

# 63 A:

I remembered quite a few details later on that I should have put in the report; that's true.

KEY QUOTE

# 64 Q:

The -- what was it that sparked your memory six weeks later, sir? Anything in particular?

# 65 MR. KELLY:

Objection. Argumentative. Object to the form, also.

# 66 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 67 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

The City Attorney asked me to relay exactly what was said in detail back and forth, so I wrote it down.

KEY QUOTE

# 68 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) But when you reviewed it the next day, sir --

# 69 A:

It wasn't the next day; it was January 1, 1996.

# 70 MR. KELLY:

'89, you mean?

# 71 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

Excuse me. Today is '96 it's 1989, January 1, the same day as the incident.

# 72 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) It wasn't in the report that was made by your partner, nor did you ask your partner to include it in the report, correct?

# 73 A:

Apparently not. It's not in the report.

# 74 Q:

Now, you also testified, if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you -- that you did not smell alcohol on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath?

# 75 A:

That's correct.

# 76 Q:

Remember testifying to that?

# 77 A:

Yes, that's what I said.

# 78 Q:

Now, in your review of your prior criminal testimony, did you come across the part of your cross-examination by Mr. Cochran, where you were asked a series of questions about this very same subject, the smell of alcohol --

# 79 A:

I --

# 80 Q:

-- on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath?

Did you come across that?

# 81 A:

I didn't review that part.

# 82 Q:

Well, let's review it together.

# 83 MR. KELLY:

Objection as to the form, Your Honor.

# 84 MR. LEONARD:

Withdrawn.

# 85 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you recall being asked -- this is at 12508 -- do you recall being asked the following questions: "And you had occasion, did you not,

to get very close to Nicole Brown Simpson on

this night; is that correct? "A. Well, she grabbed me and hung

onto me, yes."

Do you remember that question and that answer?

# 86 A:

Yes.

# 87 MR. LEONARD:

"You got very close to her; is

that correct? "A. Yes."

# 88 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember that, sir?

# 89 A:

Yes.

# 90 Q:

(MR. LEONARD) Reading: "Did you have occasion to determine

whether or not she had been drinking that

particular night? "A. I didn't smell any

significant alcoholic beverage on her

breath. I don't believe I did."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question?

# 91 A:

That's correct.

# 92 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) (Reading.) "Q. I'm not asking about

significant alcoholic beverage. Did you

smell any alcoholic beverage on her breath? "A. Not enough that I would be

able to detect. I don't remember."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question?

# 93 A:

Yes.

# 94 Q:

Next question, I don't -- I don't understand that answer, not enough. What does that mean?

(Reading.) "A. Well, I can't remember

smelling an alcoholic beverage on her

breath."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question, sir?

# 95 A:

Yes.

# 96 Q:

Next question:

"So the answer is, you don't know one

way or the other; is that correct? "A. I just can't remember

smelling alcoholic beverage on her breath. "Q. The answer is, you don't know

at this point, right? "A. Okay. I don't know."

Now, when you testified at the criminal trial, that was on January 31, 1995, right?

# 97 A:

Yes.

# 98 Q:

And you testified at this trial, as we've just elicited, that you don't know whether she had alcoholic beverage on her breath; isn't that right, sir?

# 99 MR. KELLY:

Objection. Misstates his testimony; is also argumentative at this point, Your Honor.

# 100 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 101 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath.

KEY QUOTE

# 102 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Next question is", "Did I accurately read you those

questions?"

And your answer is:

"I don't know if you accurately read

them at all because I'm not seeing what

you're reading. But I didn't smell any

alcohol on her breath."

Would you like to look the at transcript, sir?

# 103 MR. LEONARD:

May I approach?

# 104 THE COURT:

You may.

# 105 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) And go right down here, read over this page.

That's what I read.

# 106 MR. KELLY:

Are those the same questions you read before, Mr. Leonard?

# 107 MR. LEONARD:

Yes.

Would you like to look at it?

# 108 MR. KELLY:

I glanced a little at it.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

John Edwards

I remembered quite a few details later on that I should have put in the report; that's true.

Concedes the contemporaneous report was incomplete, undercutting its reliability as a record of the incident.

John Edwards

The City Attorney asked me to relay exactly what was said in detail back and forth, so I wrote it down.

Reveals the supplemental report — added six weeks later — was written at the request of prosecutors, raising questions about suggestive preparation.

John Edwards

I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath.

Contradicts his criminal trial testimony where he repeatedly said 'I don't know' and 'I can't remember smelling alcoholic beverage on her breath.'

Dan Leonard

Not ten, not several, not many, but the number eight, right?

Highlights the suspicious precision of a detail recalled years later that was never documented at the time.

Evidence (3)

2191

LAPD incident report from the January 1, 1989 domestic violence call to Rockingham, prepared by Edwards' partner Patricia Milewski and reviewed by Edwards the same day

discussed; shown to witness to demonstrate that the 'eight prior visits' detail is absent from the contemporaneous record

Informal

Edwards' criminal trial testimony transcript (January 31, 1995), specifically his cross-examination by Johnnie Cochran at page 12508, regarding alcohol on Nicole's breath

read into the record to impeach Edwards' current testimony

Informal

Supplemental report prepared by Edwards approximately six weeks after the incident at the request of the City Attorney

discussed as origin of the 'eight prior visits' detail

Notable Exchanges (2)

Dan Leonard•John Edwards

Leonard walks Edwards through the absence of the 'eight times' detail in the original report, then asks what sparked his memory six weeks later. Edwards reveals it was the City Attorney who prompted him to write it down — a damaging admission suggesting the detail may have been reconstructed rather than independently recalled.

revealing

Dan Leonard•John Edwards

Leonard reads back Edwards' own criminal trial testimony in which he repeatedly said he could not remember whether Nicole smelled of alcohol, then confronts Edwards with his flat denial at this trial that she had any alcohol on her breath.

devastating

Light Moments (1)

John Edwards

Edwards accidentally says 'January 1, 1996' (the current year during the civil trial) instead of 1989, then catches himself: 'Today is '96 it's 1989, January 1, the same day as the incident.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ John Edwards

omission from contemporaneous report

Leonard establishes that the 'eight times' detail — a specific and dramatic claim attributed to both Nicole and O.J. — appears nowhere in the report Edwards reviewed hours after the incident, only in a supplemental report prepared six weeks later at prosecutorial request.

⚔ John Edwards

prior inconsistent statement

Leonard reads Edwards' own criminal trial cross-examination where he twice said he could not remember smelling alcohol on Nicole's breath and ultimately agreed 'I don't know,' directly contradicting his testimony in this trial that she had no alcohol on her breath.

Objections

4 objections (0 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 8318 • 108 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103