Redirect examination of Michael Romano

📄 Redirect examination of Michael Romano — Wednesday, November 6, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\6\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-MICHAE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 10 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Michael Romano Motion: prior testimony admissibility ▶

Witness: Michael Romano
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, November 6, 1996 • Utterances: 49

Robert Baker cross-examines Michael Romano, a photographer who shot OJ Simpson wearing gloves in Buffalo, NY on January 15, 1994 (thirty-plus below zero) and later sold the photo to the National Enquirer during the criminal trial. Baker attempts to establish Romano's financial motive in selling the photo and to get Romano to opine on whether the gloves fit Simpson's hands — both lines of questioning were largely blocked by sustained objections.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross?

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Mr. Romano --

Leave it on, please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 3 Q:

Mr. Romano, this was January 15, 1994?

# 4 A:

Yes, sir.

# 5 Q:

It was how cold that day in Buffalo, New York?

# 6 A:

It was thirty-plus below zero.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 Q:

And did you know if Mr. Simpson had any hand warmers in the glove?

# 8 A:

No, sir, I didn't.

# 9 Q:

How much did you sell the photo for?

# 10 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Relevance.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you normally sell photos of Mr. Simpson to the National Enquirer, Mr. Romano?

# 13 A:

No, I don't.

# 14 Q:

This was a one-time shot because it was Mr. Simpson and it was after he was charged with murder?

KEY QUOTE

# 15 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 16 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 17 MICHAEL ROMANO:

Repeat the question, please.

# 18 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) It was a one-time shot after Mr. Simpson was charged with murder, correct?

# 19 A:

Yes, sir.

# 20 Q:

And how much did you get for the photo?

# 21 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Relevance.

# 22 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 23 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) How much do you usually get for a photo, Mr. Romano?

# 24 A:

It depends on the photo.

# 25 Q:

Did you get more for this photo than any other photo of Mr. Simpson?

# 26 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Relevance.

# 27 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 28 MR. BAKER:

On what basis?

# 29 THE COURT:

It's not relevant.

# 30 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you try to market that photo before you sold it?

# 31 A:

No, sir.

# 32 Q:

Did you analyze this photo before you sold it?

I mean, did you take a good look at it, Mr. Romano?

# 33 A:

What do you mean by, did I take a good look?

# 34 Q:

Did you -- for example, did Mr. Simpson's fingers go to the end of the gloves in that glove (sic)?

# 35 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Calls for conclusion.

# 36 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 37 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you make a determination as to whether or not that glove was a tight-fitting glove on Mr. Simpson?

# 38 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection. Calls for conclusion. The photo speaks for itself.

# 39 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 40 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You made no -- well, did you ever even look at the picture before you sold it?

# 41 A:

Yes, sir.

# 42 Q:

Okay.

And when did you sell it?

# 43 A:

I think it was July or August of '95, not positive.

KEY QUOTE

# 44 Q:

After the criminal trial was ongoing, sir?

# 45 A:

Yes, sir.

# 46 Q:

Okay.

# 47 MR. BAKER:

Thanks.

I don't have anything further.

# 48 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing, Your Honor.

# 49 THE COURT:

You may step down.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Michael Romano

It was thirty-plus below zero.

Establishes the conditions — extreme cold — that contextualizes why Simpson would wear thick gloves, relevant to the glove-fit defense.

Michael Romano

I think it was July or August of '95, not positive.

Romano sold the photo during the criminal trial, supporting Baker's implicit argument that Romano cashed in on Simpson's notoriety.

Robert Baker

This was a one-time shot because it was Mr. Simpson and it was after he was charged with murder, correct?

Baker's sharpest credibility attack — framing the photo sale as opportunistic.

Michael Romano

Yes, sir.

Romano concedes the sale was opportunistic, completing Baker's impeachment point despite objection being overruled rather than sustained.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Photograph of OJ Simpson wearing gloves in Buffalo, NY on January 15, 1994, sold to the National Enquirer circa July/August 1995

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Baker•Peter Gelblum•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker repeatedly tried to establish the photo's sale price; Gelblum objected each time on relevance; Fujisaki sustained every attempt. Baker pushed back once — 'On what basis?' — and Fujisaki simply replied 'It's not relevant.'

strategic

Robert Baker•Peter Gelblum•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker tried two angles to get Romano to opine on glove fit — whether fingers reached the end, and whether the glove was tight-fitting — both sustained as calls for conclusion.

frustrated

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Michael Romano

bias/financial motive

Baker established Romano sold the photo only after Simpson was charged with murder, framing it as an opportunistic one-time sale to the tabloids rather than routine professional conduct. Romano conceded the point.

Objections

6 objections (5 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8174 • 49 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103