Re-redirect examination of David R. Rossi

📄 Re-redirect examination of David R. Rossi — Tuesday, October 29, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\29\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-DAV.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 5 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of David R. Rossi Witness dismissed ▶

Witness: Sgt. David Rossi
Examiner: Robert Baker
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 • Utterances: 68

Robert Baker recrosses Sergeant Rossi on whether blood spots labeled 116 are visible in a photograph taken the day after the murders (June 13, 1994), compared to a later photograph taken three weeks later. Baker also briefly questions Rossi on whether he dispatched officers to Rockingham at 5:20 AM on June 13. Rossi maintains the blood was there even if not clearly visible in the earlier photo.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

Can I have Exhibit 2100, as well.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 2 Q:

Now, Officer, or Sergeant -- I apologize -- Sergeant Rossi, last evening, did you go over to the Doubletree Hotel and talk to these gentlemen about your testimony last night?

# 3 A:

No, sir.

# 4 Q:

You haven't talked to them since you got off the witness stand yesterday?

# 5 A:

No, I haven't.

# 6 Q:

Now, did anybody indicate to you -- and let the record indicate I'm putting 2100 in front of Officer Rossi -- where you've initialed it, anyone indicate to you that the areas that you circled were, in fact, rust spots; they weren't blood at all?

# 7 A:

No.

# 8 Q:

And would it -- well, that photo was taken on July 13 --

# 9 MR. KELLY:

Third.

# 10 MR. BAKER:

Third. I'm sorry.

This photo was taken -- I'll ask the clerk to mark it the next in order.

# 11 THE CLERK:

2102.

# 12 (The photograph taken on June 13, 1994 was marked Defendant's Exhibit 2102 for identification.)

# 13 MR. BAKER:

Thank you.

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) On 2102 -- this photograph was taken on the 13th of June, 1994. And why don't you go up and tell us where are spots 116.

Where are they, Officer Rossi?

# 15 A:

There appears to be one here. I didn't see it as well, though, on this, as on this picture.

# 16 Q:

In fact, what you see is spot 117, and there is no spot 116 on that photograph taken on June 13, 1994; isn't that true, sir?

# 17 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Argumentative. I think Mr. Baker unintentionally said 117. I don't know if he meant 115 or not, Your Honor.

# 18 MR. BAKER:

I messed up again, and I apologize.

115 is depicted on the picture of the horizontal rung of the gate in a horizontal position.

# 19 THE COURT:

Just a minute. Referring to?

# 20 MR. BAKER:

2102.

# 21 THE COURT:

Otherwise the record not going to be clear.

# 22 MR. BAKER:

I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.

# 23 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) And there is no spot that you circled as blood drops 116 in the photograph that was taken the day after the murders, correct, sir?

# 24 A:

There appears to be a drop there, yes, doesn't show as well.

# 25 Q:

But it didn't appear to be the two drops that you circled on a photograph that was taken three weeks later; would you agree or disagree with that?

# 26 A:

I disagree. It doesn't show on that picture.

# 27 Q:

You believe if we had a better picture, Sergeant Rossi, we would most certainly see the spots that you circled on Exhibit 2101, right?

# 28 A:

I was there. There was blood, sir.

KEY QUOTE

# 29 Q:

You didn't answer my question, Sergeant. I said if we had a picture, you believe that those spots that are lateral four inches or so from the spot 115, that would absolutely show because you know it was there, right?

# 30 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Asked and answered, argumentative.

# 31 THE COURT:

It is argumentative. Sustained.

# 32 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You agree, 116, the two spots that are indicated on Exhibit 2, and the dot that is indicated on 82, and the spots next to the rung don't show at all on 2102, the actual photograph that was taken the day after the murders; agreed?

# 33 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Asked and answered several times.

# 34 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 35 A:

No, sir; I disagree.

# 36 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You think that both of those blood spots are shown there, correct?

# 37 A:

There appears to be at least one.

# 38 Q:

Okay. That's the point. There are not two, there are not three, nor are there four blood drops in photograph 2102. You would agree with that, would you not?

# 39 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Your Honor, the picture doesn't show the whole gate for what purpose it was taken.

# 40 MR. BAKER:

I object to his interpretation of what the picture shows.

# 41 THE COURT:

I'll sustain in the form that question is asked. If you were a little more precise, the objection would not be sustained.

I think the question, as posed, asks the officer to testify that the spots are not there, as opposed to the spots do not appear on the photograph. That's the basis on which the Court sustains the objection.

# 42 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You do not see any of the purported blood spots on 2102 photograph taken by Police Department on the third -- 13th of June, 1994, that corresponds with any of what you say are blood spots No. 116; correct or incorrect?

# 43 A:

Incorrect, sir.

# 44 Q:

Okay. You see them.

Okay. Now, did you dispatch Officer Gonzalez and Officer Ashton to Rockingham at 0520 hours on the morning of the 14th?

# 45 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection.

# 46 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 47 MR. BAKER:

I'll rephrase.

# 48 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you dispatch Officers Gonzalez and Ashton to 360 360 North Rockingham at 5:20 in the morning on the 13th?

# 49 A:

No.

# 50 Q:

Never did that?

# 51 A:

No, I didn't.

# 52 Q:

YOU didn't dispatch any black and white to go knock on doors at Rockingham?

# 53 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. That's a different question.

# 54 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 55 MR. BAKER:

Pardon?

# 56 THE COURT:

The objection was what?

# 57 MR. MEDVENE:

The question was misleading. He said did you dispatch Ashton and Gonzalez. And then the next question was, are you saying --

# 58 THE COURT:

You're saying it sounded like the same question?

# 59 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes.

# 60 THE COURT:

It does.

# 61 MR. BAKER:

I'll ask a different question.

# 62 THE COURT:

Ask it like a different question.

# 63 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you dispatch any black and white to 360 North Rockingham at 5:20 or thereabouts in the morning of the 13th of June of 1994?

# 64 A:

Not to my recollection.

# 65 Q:

You wouldn't have had any reason to do that, as you sit here now, looking back?

# 66 A:

No.

# 67 Q:

Thank you.

# 68 MR. BAKER:

Nothing further.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

David R. Rossi

I was there. There was blood, sir.

Rossi's core assertion — he insists on the blood's existence based on personal observation rather than photographic evidence.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I think the question, as posed, asks the officer to testify that the spots are not there, as opposed to the spots do not appear on the photograph. That's the basis on which the Court sustains the objection.

Fujisaki draws a careful evidentiary distinction between the absence of visible spots in a photo versus the absence of the spots themselves.

David R. Rossi

Incorrect, sir.

Rossi refuses Baker's repeated attempts to get him to concede the spots are absent from the June 13 photo.

Evidence (5)

Defendant's 2100

Photograph with Rossi's initials marking circled blood spots

discussed

Defendant's 2101

Photograph showing blood spots 116 circled by Rossi, taken approximately three weeks after the murders

discussed

Defendant's 2102

Photograph of gate taken June 13, 1994 — the day after the murders — newly marked during this examination

introduced, discussed

Plaintiff's 2

Photograph indicating spots 116

discussed

Plaintiff's 82

Photograph with dot indicating blood spot near gate rung

discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Baker•David R. Rossi

Baker repeatedly tries to get Rossi to admit that blood spots 116 do not appear in the June 13 photo; Rossi consistently disagrees and insists at least one spot is visible.

strategic

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Fujisaki sustains an objection but explains precisely how Baker should rephrase — distinguishing 'spots not there' from 'spots do not appear on the photograph' — effectively coaching Baker toward a more precise question.

procedural

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker's question about dispatching Gonzalez and Ashton is sustained, and then a follow-up rephrasing is also sustained for sounding like the same question, prompting Fujisaki to tell Baker to 'ask it like a different question.'

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Robert Baker

Baker accidentally refers to the photograph date as 'July 13' and Kelly corrects him 'Third,' prompting Baker to apologize: 'I messed up again, and I apologize.'

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Fujisaki: 'Ask it like a different question.' — dry instruction after Baker's rephrased question sounded identical to the sustained one.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ David R. Rossi

photographic impeachment

Baker uses the June 13, 1994 photograph (taken the day after the murders) to argue that the blood spots Rossi circled on a later photograph are not visible, implying they may not have existed or were misidentified as blood.

Objections

7 objections (5 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8074 • 68 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103