Sidebar: evidence tapes

📄 Sidebar: evidence tapes — Thursday, October 31, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\OCT\31\SIDEBAR-EVIDENCE-TAPES.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 6 of 57

◀ Recess Cross-examination of Thomas Lange (part 1) ▶

Date: Thursday, October 31, 1996 • Utterances: 8

Defense attorney Baker argued he had the right to cross-examine a detective (one of the two lead co-detectives) about OJ Simpson's recorded statement at Parker Center, citing expert witness rules and the scope of the 'entire transaction' from June 13-17. Judge Fujisaki ruled against the defense, finding that the tapes were not covered in the witness's direct examination and therefore outside the scope of cross.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

# 2 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 3 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, we believe we have, as the plaintiffs have the right to play Mr. Simpson's statement when we choose to in the plaintiffs' case.

That playing of Mr. Simpson's statement, which I understand is the contention of the defense at this stage, is clearly outside the direct examination.

The witness didn't testify at all about even being at Parker Center. It's an attempt to put the statement on before plaintiff attempts to put it on. It's clearly outside the scope of the direct examination and in a significant part, it's also hearsay.

# 4 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, under -- as I'm sure the Court is aware, he has been designated as an expert under evidence code section 721 as well as under the case of Smith v. Brown Forman Distillers, 196 Cal.App.3d, 503, and the case of Noll v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 274 Cal.App.2d, 281.

We have the right to cross-examine this witness on the entire transaction, and the entire transaction.

They have taken this gentleman from -- with some significant gaps that we intend to close. But they have taken this gentleman from the date of June 13, to and including the 17th.

And we intend to fill in the gaps and to cross-examine him about his involvement. They've got him as one of the two lead co-detectives and I think we have the right to pursue a full and complete cross-examination under the aforementioned cases, as well as Evidence Code Section 721, and I believe 651.

# 5 THE COURT:

With regards to the tapes, the defense precluded to finish cross examination as to the tapes. That part was not covered in direct examination of this witness.

# 6 MR. BAKER:

I would suggest as an expert as number one; number two, as the co-investigator, which was brought out by Mr. Medvene.

He interrogated Mr. Simpson and we'd certainly like to interrogate him about those tapes and his involvement in that.

# 7 THE COURT:

That's my -- that's my ruling.

# 8 (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Edward Medvene

It's an attempt to put the statement on before plaintiff attempts to put it on. It's clearly outside the scope of the direct examination and in a significant part, it's also hearsay.

Plaintiff's dual objection: scope and hearsay — framing defense's move as a tactical attempt to jump the queue on Simpson's own statement.

Robert Baker

They have taken this gentleman from -- with some significant gaps that we intend to close. But they have taken this gentleman from the date of June 13, to and including the 17th.

Baker signals the defense strategy: expose gaps in the investigation timeline that plaintiffs selectively presented.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

That part was not covered in direct examination of this witness.

The ruling — clean and final, shutting down the defense attempt.

Evidence (1)

Informal

OJ Simpson's recorded statement at Parker Center

disputed — defense sought to introduce via cross, plaintiffs objected as outside scope

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker invoked Evidence Code sections 721 and 651 and two California appellate cases to argue broad cross-examination rights for expert witnesses; Fujisaki rejected the argument, ruling the tapes weren't covered on direct.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8939 • 8 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103