Recross-examination of John Edwards

📄 Recross-examination of John Edwards — Monday, November 18, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\18\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-JOHN-ED.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 17 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of John Edwards Witness excused ▶

Witness: Det. John Edwards
Examiner: John Kelly
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 • Utterances: 50

Mr. Leonard recross-examines Officer Edwards (a responding officer) about inconsistencies between his direct examination testimony and his supplemental police report, written six weeks after the 1989 domestic violence incident. Leonard presses the witness on whether Nicole Brown Simpson described being 'knocked down' when she first emerged, and whether the supplemental report — prepared with the explicit goal of capturing all detail — omits information Edwards testified to on direct. The witness holds his ground but appears flustered at times, ultimately explaining that additional details like hair-pulling appeared in the primary report, not the supplemental.

# 1 Q:

Just so we get the sequence clear here, that report that Mr. Kelly was just talking about, that was written what, six weeks after the incident; is that right?

# 2 A:

It was a month and a half; possibly about six weeks.

# 3 Q:

And you agreed earlier that your memory was much fresher about these events the same day, correct, than it was six weeks later?

# 4 A:

No. I think I remembered quite a lot. It was in that six-week period.

# 5 Q:

On direct examination, you testified, if I'm not mistaken -- you said that Nicole Brown Simpson came out and stated that she --

# 6 MR. KELLY:

Objection. This is improper recross. It's going back to my direct.

# 7 MR. LEONARD:

If we can approach, I can demonstrate the relevance at this point. It's two questions. It has to do with this report.

# 8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 9 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that Nicole Brown Simpson had told you when she came out of -- when you saw her that morning, that she had been punched, correct? That she had been beaten, right?

# 10 A:

Yes.

# 11 Q:

That she had been slapped, right?

# 12 A:

Right.

# 13 Q:

That she had been knocked down, right?

# 14 A:

I don' think I used those words, "knocked down."

# 15 Q:

That she had been --

# 16 A:

I think it was kicked.

# 17 Q:

And her hair had been pulled?

# 18 A:

And her hair was pulled, yes.

# 19 Q:

And that she had been thrown out of the house, right?

# 20 A:

I don't remember seeing that word in there.

# 21 Q:

Okay.

But you do remember -- and this is something that's very clear in your mind -- that she said that she had been -- her hair had been pulled, right?

# 22 A:

Right.

# 23 Q:

And that she had been knocked down, correct, in addition to being slapped and kicked?

A I don't think I put the words "knocked down," if I'm not mistaken.

# 24 Q:

No. I'm asking you what you testified to today, sir, not what was in any report.

If you don't remember, you don't remember.

# 25 A:

I remember, but I don't think she said she was knocked down.

# 26 Q:

My question is what you testified today on the direct examination, sir.

If you don't remember, that's fine.

# 27 MR. KELLY:

Objection as to the form of the question. It's argumentative.

# 28 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 29 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You don't remember?

# 30 A:

You know, the way you've gotten the question a little mixed up, I quite don't understand what it is you want.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 Q:

I'll withdraw the question.

When you filled out this supplemental report, I think you indicated that you wanted to include -- you wanted to include as much detail as possible, right?

# 32 A:

The City Attorney asked me to include as much detail as possible.

# 33 Q:

You wanted to include detail that you either forgot or left out from the earlier report, correct?

# 34 A:

That's correct.

# 35 Q:

All right.

Do you recall putting in the supplemental report that when she came out, you asked her what happened, and she said that O.J. had slapped her and kicked her, period?

Do you remember that do?

You want to look at the report?

# 36 A:

That's initially what she told me.

Then she expanded on that in the car when we handed her the report.

# 37 Q:

When you testified here today, sir, you said that when she first came out, she described things beyond slapping and kicking, didn't you, when she first came out, when you first saw her?

Do you remember testifying to that?

# 38 A:

Yes, and then just --

# 39 Q:

Do you want to change your testimony now?

KEY QUOTE

# 40 A:

No, I don't want to change my testimony; thank you.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 Q:

Which is it?

# 42 A:

There were --they were almost the same time; they were seconds apart. And that's exactly what she said.

# 43 Q:

Is that included in your report, here, sir, the supplemental report?

# 44 A:

What's included?

# 45 Q:

That -- anything beyond slapping and kicking, is that in the supplemental report?

# 46 A:

That's in the primary report, the slapping, kicking, hair pulling, in the primary reports.

# 47 Q:

Is it in the supplemental report where you were going to give as much detail as possible, sir?

# 48 A:

No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report.

KEY QUOTE

# 49 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you.

# 50 MR. KELLY:

I have no further questions.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Edwards

You know, the way you've gotten the question a little mixed up, I quite don't understand what it is you want.

Witness pushes back against Leonard's aggressive questioning, signaling frustration and an attempt to deflect rather than answer directly.

Edwards

That's initially what she told me. Then she expanded on that in the car when we handed her the report.

Key explanatory pivot — the witness introduces a new distinction between what Nicole said at the door vs. in the car, which Leonard then challenges.

Leonard

Do you want to change your testimony now?

Sharp, confrontational question designed to force the witness to either contradict himself or commit to a version of events inconsistent with the supplemental report.

Edwards

No, I don't want to change my testimony; thank you.

The 'thank you' is defiant and slightly sarcastic — the witness refuses to capitulate under pressure.

Edwards

No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report.

The witness's ultimate justification for the omission in the supplemental report — a plausible but convenient explanation that Leonard had been pushing him toward.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Supplemental police report written approximately six weeks after the 1989 domestic violence incident

discussed and used to challenge testimony

Informal

Primary police report from the 1989 incident, which included details of slapping, kicking, and hair-pulling

referenced by witness to explain omission from supplemental report

Notable Exchanges (2)

Leonard•Edwards

Leonard persistently asks whether Nicole said she was 'knocked down,' cycling through the question multiple times while the witness insists he never used that word. Leonard then pivots to ask what the witness testified on direct — not what's in the report — creating confusion the witness calls out directly.

strategic/grinding

Leonard•Edwards

Leonard confronts the witness with the supplemental report's sparse language ('slapped and kicked, period') versus the richer testimony given on direct, forcing the witness to explain the discrepancy. The witness's answer — that fuller details were in the primary report — resolves the tension but only after visible pressure.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Edwards

prior inconsistent statement / omission

Leonard highlights that the supplemental report — written specifically to capture all detail — only records Nicole saying she was 'slapped and kicked,' while Edwards testified on direct to a broader account including hair-pulling and being knocked down. The implication is that the more dramatic details were embellished or reconstructed over time.

Witness Demeanor

Witness corrects Leonard's characterization ('I think it was kicked')

Witness expresses confusion and mild frustration ('the way you've gotten the question a little mixed up')

Witness responds with clipped defiance ('No, I don't want to change my testimony; thank you')

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8322 • 50 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103