Cross-examination of Karen Crawford

📄 Cross-examination of Karen Crawford — Friday, October 25, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\25\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-KAREN-CRA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 3 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Karen Crawford Exhibit admission: Tanner ▶

Witness: Karen Crawford
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Friday, October 25, 1996 • Utterances: 43

Defense attorney Dan Leonard briefly cross-examined Karen Crawford, who had found eyeglasses near the crime scene and returned them to Ron Goldman. Leonard established that both lenses were intact when Crawford found and returned the glasses, contrasting with the exhibit bag which now has a lens missing. He also confirmed Goldman did not own a car and walked to work, and briefly touched on her police contact history.

# 1 Q:

Good morning.

# 2 A:

Hi.

# 3 Q:

My name is Dan Leonard. I represent O.J. Simpson. You were asked about --

# 4 MR. LEONARD:

May I approach, Your Honor?

# 5 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 6

BY MR. LEONARD:

# 7 Q:

You were asked about these glasses by Mr. Petrocelli. Is there anything different about the glasses from when you picked them up OFF the street?

# 8 A:

When I found them, they were in fine shape. Nothing -- they hadn't been run over; they were -- no lenses knocked out of the glasses.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 Q:

Okay. If you examine this bag, you'll see that one of the lenses is missing; is that right?

KEY QUOTE

# 10 A:

Yes.

# 11 Q:

Okay. When you picked them up, both lenses were there?

# 12 A:

Yes, both were there.

# 13 Q:

And when you gave them to Mr. Goldman both lenses were there?

# 14 A:

Yes.

# 15 Q:

Now, you said that you understood that Mr. Goldman walked to and from work; is that right?

# 16 A:

Normally, yes.

# 17 Q:

He didn't own a car?

# 18 A:

Not that I knew of, no.

# 19 Q:

And he didn't have a driver's license?

# 20 A:

Oh, I don't know about that.

# 21 Q:

You were interviewed how many times by the police? Do you remember?

# 22 A:

I don't remember. I know once, for sure. Maybe two times. I can't remember.

# 23 Q:

Do you remember getting a phone call from a police officer on the 13th?

# 24 A:

On the 13th?

# 25 Q:

Which would have been Monday, the day after the murders. Do you remember that?

# 26 A:

Well, I initially called first because what I had seen on TV. And then they got my information and had someone call me back.

# 27 Q:

And then, a couple days later, you were interviewed by a couple of detectives. Do you remember that?

# 28 A:

Yes.

# 29 Q:

Detective Tippin, a Detective --

# 30 A:

Yeah.

# 31 Q:

-- Detective Carr?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 Q:

You saw Ron on the phone, talking to Nicole?

# 34 A:

Yes.

# 35 Q:

Can you describe everything that you saw him do?

# 36 A:

I don't think I can do that.

# 37 Q:

Was he just holding the phone and talking to her? You didn't see him writing anything down?

# 38 A:

No, I didn't.

# 39 Q:

Okay. Thank you.

# 40 THE COURT:

Anything further?

# 41 MR. PETROCELLI:

No.

# 42 THE COURT:

Thank you. You're excused.

# 43 (Witness excused.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Karen Crawford

When I found them, they were in fine shape. Nothing -- they hadn't been run over; they were -- no lenses knocked out of the glasses.

Establishes the glasses were undamaged when found, making the missing lens in the evidence bag a point of interest for the defense.

Dan Leonard

If you examine this bag, you'll see that one of the lenses is missing; is that right?

Implicitly challenges evidence integrity — the glasses deteriorated or were altered between Crawford returning them and their appearance as an exhibit.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Eyeglasses in an evidence bag, now missing one lens; Crawford found them intact and returned them to Ron Goldman

discussed, condition challenged

Notable Exchanges (1)

Dan Leonard•Karen Crawford

Leonard draws out that both lenses were present when Crawford found and returned the glasses, but the exhibit bag now shows one missing lens — a quiet challenge to evidence handling.

strategic

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8018 • 43 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103