Direct examination of John Edwards (afternoon)

📄 Direct examination of John Edwards (afternoon) — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-JOHN-EDW.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Ruling on motions Sidebar: cross-examination scope ▶

Witness: Det. John Edwards
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 104

Detective John Edwards continued his direct examination about the January 1, 1989 domestic violence incident involving Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson. He testified about returning Nicole to her Rockingham home, then surveilling the property for 45 minutes watching for Simpson's Bentley, before leaving after receiving word on Simpson's whereabouts. The session concluded with the admission into evidence of three Polaroid photographs of Nicole (Exhibits 3, 4, 5) and the police report (Exhibit 2191), over a defense hearsay objection argued at sidebar.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

# 2 THE COURT:

Okay. You may resume.

# 3 THE CLERK:

You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

# 4 DET. JOHN EDWARDS:

John Philip Edwards.

JOHN PHILIP EDWARDS the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KELLY:

# 5 Q:

Detective Edwards, when we broke for lunch, you just finished testifying as to the three Polaroids you had taken of Nicole Brown Simpson at West L.A. station; is that correct?

# 6 A:

That's correct.

# 7 Q:

Now, after you had taken those three photographs of Nicole, what, if anything, did you do next?

# 8 A:

I retained those photographs in my possession.

Then I walked back out to the patrol car with Nicole Simpson. My partner and I drove her back to her home.

# 9 Q:

Okay.

What, if anything, did you do when you got back to her house?

# 10 A:

She operated the gate which allowed us inside. We dropped her off and then returned en route back to the station to complete the crime report.

# 11 Q:

When you dropped her off, did you happen to see that Bentley in the driveway that you had observed earlier?

# 12 A:

No, it was not in the driveway.

It was now daylight.

# 13 Q:

And what, if anything, happened when you were en route back to the station?

# 14 A:

About 15 minutes after we dropped her off, I got another message over my M.D.T., mobile digital terminal, in the car.

# 15 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, calls for hearsay.

# 16 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 17 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) You received a communication in your car?

# 18 A:

Yes.

# 19 Q:

Okay.

As a result of that communication you received, what, if anything, did you do next?

# 20 A:

I returned back to the Rockingham address.

# 21 Q:

And did you drive by the residence at that point?

# 22 A:

Yes.

I looked for the Bentley and I didn't see it.

# 23 Q:

Okay.

What, if anything, happened next?

# 24 A:

I parked approximately three houses up from the address for 45 minutes, in hopes of seeing the Bentley return.

KEY QUOTE

# 25 Q:

And did you see it return?

# 26 A:

No, I didn't.

# 27 Q:

Did you take any further action after you did not see the Bentley return?

# 28 A:

I radioed the station and asked them to call Nicole Simpson at her home, and ask her if the defendant, O.J. Simpson, was at the house.

And they did, and they said that --

# 29 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, calls for hearsay. Objection at this point.

# 30 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 31 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) Just yes or no, Detective: Did you receive a response as to whether Mr. Simpson was home or not?

# 32 A:

Yes, I did.

# 33 Q:

And as a result of that response, did you remain in that location or did you leave?

# 34 A:

I left.

# 35 Q:

Now -- and did you have occasion to go back to that location any other time that day?

# 36 A:

No.

# 37 Q:

Or any future time after that day at all?

# 38 A:

No.

# 39 Q:

Did you have occasion to fill out a police report as a result of that incident later that morning?

# 40 A:

Yes.

# 41 Q:

Okay.

And how was that filled out?

# 42 A:

I directed my -- the officer I was training, Patricia Milewski, M-I-L-E-W-S-K-I (sic) to complete the report because I was training her, and then I read the report, I made some changes on it in my own handwriting. Then we turned the report in.

# 43 Q:

Was this done in the normal course of your duties that day?

# 44 A:

Yes.

# 45 Q:

And was this a business record of the LAPD, kept in the normal course of business, also?

# 46 A:

Yes.

And we booked the photographs as evidence, also.

# 47 MR. KELLY:

Steve, can I see --

# 48 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to take a look at this, Detective, and see if you recognize that as the report you --

I believe is that 2191.

# 49 A:

Yes, it is 2191 on this yellow piece of paper.

# 50 (The instrument herein referred to as three-page report with an attached property report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2191.)

# 51 A:

This is the four-page -- a three-page report with an attached property report that we completed.

# 52 MR. KELLY:

Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, which were the three photographs, and this also, Exhibit 2191.

# 53 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I have an objection only to the last exhibit. I believe that calls for hearsay, doesn't fall within any exception.

I'll remind the Court of its previous ruling with regard to Sergeant Berris' -- or Detective Berris' report from the Chicago Police Department.

# 54 THE COURT:

Can I see counsel at side bench.

# 55 MR. LEONARD:

With the reporter? Need the reporter?

# 56 THE COURT:

Yeah.

# 57 (The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the reporter.)

# 58 THE COURT:

Okay. Didn't we have a hearing on this?

# 59 MR. PETROCELLI:

Yes.

# 60 MR. KELLY:

Yes, we did.

# 61 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor permitted the production of the out-of-court statements made in the police reports in one of the motions in limine.

# 62 THE COURT:

What day was that?

# 63 MR. PETROCELLI:

I think that was on the 16th, Your Honor. September 16 was that big day we had all the hearings.

# 64 MR. KELLY:

I think it was number 9 -- defense's motion in limine number 9 or 12.

# 65 MR. LEONARD:

Every statement made in a police report is admissible.

# 66 MR. PETROCELLI:

None of Nicole's out-of-court statements were admissible under 1240 of the Evidence Code as spontaneous statements; plus, the document itself is a business record.

It's unlike the Berris police reports, where you don't have spontaneous statements. That's the difference.

KEY QUOTE

# 67 THE COURT:

All right. The Court ruled that statements in the police report qualify spontaneous declarations and are within the parameters of Section 1280 of the Evidence Code, and also under 1240. And the Court allowed the statements of Nicole that were made to the police officers.

Now the objection is to the report itself, isn't it?

# 68 MR. LEONARD:

Yes.

# 69 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's a business record.

# 70 THE COURT:

I'm sorry?

# 71 MR. PETROCELLI:

It was a report, a business record. They established the foundational elements and the statements of Nicole all qualify as spontaneous statements under 1240. So I think that covers all the hearsay rulings.

# 72 MR. LEONARD:

There's no foundation for that.

# 73 MR. PETROCELLI:

For what?

# 74 MR. LEONARD:

Every one of them is spontaneous.

# 75 MR. PETROCELLI:

Every statement he elicited from Nicole is at a time of stress, as indicated by his questions.

# 76 MR. KELLY:

She was crying.

# 77 THE COURT:

Okay. What in particular are you objecting to?

# 78 MR. LEONARD:

Well, it's not necessarily -- are you -- is this the only one you intend to get in?

# 79 MR. KELLY:

We'll take one at a time.

# 80 MR. LEONARD:

Okay.

Well, there's a statement in the --

# 81 MR. PETROCELLI:

This one?

# 82 MR. LEONARD:

No. I -- no. I can't point to anything in here other than I would point out that this report was not written by this officer. He claims that he had some authority over it and that he reviewed it. There's, I suppose, the impeachment.

I wonder why these guys want this. For instance, this -- she reports that Nicole came out and said that Simpson said to her, "I'll kill you."

Okay. That's not what this witness said. This witness said that Nicole ran out and said, he's going to kill me. That's a major difference. There is a threat; whereas, the other statement is her state of mind as to what was going to happen to her. This is radically different.

And I think if they're going to try to put this in, they're obliged to bring a witness in so we can cross-examine the witness.

What I mean, this particular officer who wrote this is not this guy; some other officer wrote this, Milewski or whatever her name is. I think it's unfair.

# 83 MR. KELLY:

Well, it goes --

# 84 THE COURT:

Could you keep your voice down.

# 85 MR. KELLY:

I'm sorry.

That goes into evidence. They had every opportunity to use this witness to impeach him.

# 86 MR. LEONARD:

I'm to impeach him with the oral statement -- I'm to impeach him with a victim's state of mind. Lovely.

# 87 MR. KELLY:

He indicated he had firsthand knowledge of everything, indicates it in the report.

# 88 MR. LEONARD:

He contradicted himself. I think that goes to reliability of the report. He didn't say anything about a threat from Simpson. That was not elicited, nor has he testified to that in any prior proceeding, and it's not in any subsequent reports.

I think we're at a distinct disadvantage. I don't want to have to impeach the guy with a worse statement. It's not fair.

# 89 THE COURT:

Okay. I'll stand on the ruling I made on September 17. Overruled.

# 90 MR. LEONARD:

It's coming in?

# 91 THE COURT:

Yeah.

# 92 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

# 93 MR. KELLY:

Your Honor, to confirm, 3, 4, 5, and 2191 have all been moved into evidence at this time; is that correct?

# 94 THE CLERK:

Yes.

# 95 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 96 (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 for identification was received in evidence.)

# 97 (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 for identification was received in evidence.)

# 98 (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 for identification was received in evidence.)

# 99 (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2191 for identification was received in evidence.)

# 100 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective Edwards, did you ever see Mr. Simpson again after you saw him that morning on New Year's Day, 1989?

# 101 A:

Not personally.

# 102 Q:

And did you ever see Nicole Brown Simpson after that morning of New Years Day 1989 when you dropped her off?

# 103 A:

No.

# 104 MR. KELLY:

I have no further questions.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dan Leonard

She reports that Nicole came out and said that Simpson said to her, 'I'll kill you.' Okay. That's not what this witness said. This witness said that Nicole ran out and said, he's going to kill me. That's a major difference.

Defense reveals an inconsistency between Edwards' oral testimony and the written police report — one records a direct threat from Simpson, the other records Nicole's state of mind — potentially undermining the report's reliability.

John Edwards

I parked approximately three houses up from the address for 45 minutes, in hopes of seeing the Bentley return.

Shows that responding officers were sufficiently alarmed by the incident to surveil the residence for Simpson's return, underscoring the seriousness of the threat assessment.

Daniel Petrocelli

None of Nicole's out-of-court statements were admissible under 1240 of the Evidence Code as spontaneous statements; plus, the document itself is a business record.

Plaintiffs' dual-track argument for admissibility — spontaneous declaration exception and business records exception — which the court accepted.

Dan Leonard

I don't want to have to impeach the guy with a worse statement. It's not fair.

Candid sidebar admission that the report actually contains more damaging content against Simpson than the officer's own testimony, putting defense in a difficult position.

Evidence (4)

Plaintiffs' 3

Polaroid photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson taken at West L.A. station on January 1, 1989

admitted into evidence

Plaintiffs' 4

Polaroid photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson taken at West L.A. station on January 1, 1989

admitted into evidence

Plaintiffs' 5

Polaroid photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson taken at West L.A. station on January 1, 1989

admitted into evidence

Plaintiffs' 2191

Three-page police report with attached property report completed by trainee Officer Patricia Milewski, reviewed and corrected by Edwards, documenting the January 1, 1989 domestic violence incident

admitted into evidence over defense hearsay objection

Notable Exchanges (2)

Dan Leonard•Daniel Petrocelli•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Extended sidebar battle over admissibility of the 1989 police report. Leonard argued the report was written by a different officer (Milewski) and contained statements inconsistent with Edwards' testimony — specifically that the report records Simpson saying 'I'll kill you' while Edwards testified Nicole said 'he's going to kill me.' Petrocelli prevailed on both business records and spontaneous declaration grounds.

strategic

John Edwards•John Kelly

Edwards testified he parked three houses away from Rockingham for 45 minutes watching for Simpson's Bentley to return, then had the station call Nicole to confirm Simpson's location before leaving — painting a picture of officers who took the threat seriously.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ John Edwards

prior inconsistent statement

Defense identified at sidebar that the police report (written by Milewski under Edwards' supervision) records Nicole quoting Simpson directly — 'I'll kill you' — while Edwards testified she said 'he's going to kill me,' a distinction Leonard characterized as 'radically different' going to the report's reliability. This was raised to block the report's admission rather than as cross-examination impeachment.

Objections

4 objections (2 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8316 • 104 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103