Cross-examination of David Rossi

📄 Cross-examination of David Rossi — Monday, October 28, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\28\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DAVID-ROS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 4 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of David Rossi (part 3) Jury dismissal and adjournment ▶

Witness: Sgt. David Rossi
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, October 28, 1996 • Utterances: 29

Plaintiffs' counsel Medvene attempts to conduct redirect examination of Detective Rossi using a photo board to rebut Baker's implication that blood drop 115 on the rear gate wasn't photographed until weeks after the murders. Baker's initial objection is sustained, triggering a lengthy sidebar where Medvene struggles to explain the relevance of June 13 vs. July 3 photographs to the judge. Court adjourns before the redirect examination actually occurs.

# 1 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, there's one exhibit we want to get from the jury room. It's a board.

# 2 (Counsel displays large poster board.)

# 3 Q:

I put on the board, Detective Rossi, what's been marked as Plaintiffs' 80. And I ask you to come down to the board.

# 4 MR. BAKER:

Beyond the scope.

# 5 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 6 MR. MEDVENE:

May we be heard?

# 7 THE COURT:

All right.

# 8 MR. MEDVENE:

Mr. Baker, in his questioning, implied that there was some deception in the photographs shown to this witness and in terms of the blood on the rear gate. And we want to direct his attention to the board, which shows certain photographs that were taken on June 13.

Mr. Baker asked him if there were any photographs taken on June 13, as I remember it, that reflect the blood on the back gate, and weren't these photographs that he was shown taken at a different day, which they were.

We want to show him the board, which has both photographs taken June 13 and July 3, and we want to ask him whether or not the blood drop can be identified in which 115 appears -- does it actually appear on the blowup of a blowup taken on June 13. That's the basis of the question.

# 9 THE COURT:

I don't even understand what you said.

KEY QUOTE

# 10 MR. MEDVENE:

What we said was, Your Honor, that when Mr. Baker questioned the witness about the blood drop 115, he asked him whether or not that picture was taken on June 13, and wasn't it really taken several weeks later.

And we want to show the witness a picture that was taken June 13 and ask him if the blood drop identified where 115 appears is the same blood drop as appears in a blowup of the pictures taken on June 13.

# 11 THE COURT:

Have you a picture of the same scene taken on the 13th?

# 12 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, sir. And we have a blowup.

# 13 THE COURT:

Let me see it.

# 14 MR. MEDVENE:

You want to see it?

# 15 THE COURT:

Yeah.

# 16 (Pause in the proceedings.)

# 17 MR. MEDVENE:

These pictures that were on the board are Exhibit 719. This is a distance shot, the one in my left hand. The other two are close-ups that were blown up.

One of the close-ups that we have on the board purports to show a spot in the position of 115. When the pictures were originally taken June 13, they weren't taken for purposes of showing the blood. What we did was take one of the original pictures that was shown to be blown up. The blow-up, along with the other pictures, is what's on the board. And the blowup, the June 13 picture shows the spot that, on July 3, is marked with the property marker 113 -- excuse me -- 115. And that's all we wanted to show him.

# 18 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, if we do this --

# 19 MR. MEDVENE:

I'm not saying it clearly enough.

The pictures that I have as 719 were taken June 13. The one in the middle is a blowup. That blowup purports to show the blood spot. The July is marked 115. That's it in a nutshel.

# 20 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, I'll be -- if we do this --

KEY QUOTE

# 21 THE COURT:

Here excuse me.

# 22 MR. BAKER:

If this is allowed I get it under . So we can do it tomorrow or whatever you want to do.

# 23 THE COURT:

I don't understand the point that you're trying to get across.

# 24 MR. MEDVENE:

The point that we're trying to get across is, this blood --

# 25 THE COURT:

Your hand is covering the transmitter.

# 26 MR. MEDVENE:

Sorry, Your Honor.

The point we're trying to get across is, a blood spot appears on the photograph that was taken June 13.

KEY QUOTE

# 27 THE COURT:

Is this exhibit stipulated to?

# 28 MR. MEDVENE:

I believe it is. I have to look, but I believe it is.

# 29 THE COURT:

Okay. We're adjourned to 8:30 tomorrow.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

Let me remind you: Do not allow yourself to be influenced by any outside influences like newspapers television, broadcast media, or family members or anybody else. Don't let them talk to you about this case; don't talk to them about the case.

All right. See you tomorrow, 8:30.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I don't even understand what you said.

Judge's frank response to Medvene's first attempt to explain the photograph argument — sets the tone for repeated failed explanations.

Edward Medvene

The point we're trying to get across is, a blood spot appears on the photograph that was taken June 13.

The stripped-down version of plaintiffs' argument: blood drop 115 was visible in original crime scene photos, undermining Baker's insinuation it was planted or photographed later.

Robert Baker

Your Honor, I'll be -- if we do this -- if this is allowed I get it under. So we can do it tomorrow or whatever you want to do.

Baker signals he'll seek recross if the redirect is permitted, effectively turning the dispute into a negotiation about timing.

Evidence (2)

Plaintiffs' 80

Large poster board displaying photographs taken on June 13 and July 3 at the rear gate crime scene

Retrieved from jury room, displayed, but not admitted into testimony — court adjourned

719

Photographs taken June 13 at the crime scene, including a distance shot and close-up blowups purporting to show the location of blood drop 115

Discussed during sidebar; stipulation status uncertain

Notable Exchanges (1)

Edward Medvene•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Medvene attempts three separate explanations of the same argument — that June 13 photos show blood drop 115 predating the July 3 property marker photos — and the judge fails to follow each time until Medvene finally distills it to one sentence.

frustrating/procedural

Light Moments (1)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Judge interrupts Medvene mid-explanation: 'Your hand is covering the transmitter.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ crime scene blood evidence

timing/authenticity challenge

Plaintiffs describe Baker's cross as having 'implied that there was some deception in the photographs shown to this witness' by suggesting blood drop 115 was only photographed weeks after the murders, not on June 13.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8046 • 29 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103