Direct examination of Officer Thompson

📄 Direct examination of Officer Thompson — Tuesday, January 14, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\14\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-OFFICER-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 41 of 57

◀ Morning session opening Redirect examination of Officer Thompson ▶

Witness: Donald Thompson
Examiner: John Kelly
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 • Utterances: 28

Mr. P. Baker conducts direct examination of Officer Thompson about the morning of June 13, 1994 at 360 North Rockingham. Thompson confirms he was ordered by Detective Vannatter to handcuff O.J. Simpson upon his arrival, and identifies a vehicle impound report (Civil 271) prepared by his partner Angela Guzman documenting the 1994 Ford Bronco parked on Rockingham.

# 1 A:

Good morning.

# 2 Q:

You were at 360 North Rockingham on June 13, 1994, were you not?

# 3 A:

Yes, I was.

# 4 Q:

You received some orders from Detective Vannatter that day, did you not?

# 5 A:

Yes.

# 6 Q:

Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when he arrived there, did he not?

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. KELLY:

Objection, leading.

# 8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 9 A:

Yes.

# 10 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Vannatter told this jury that he didn't tell you that, he would have lied to this jury, correct?

# 11 A:

No.

# 12 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection.

# 13 THE COURT:

Sustained. The jury is to disregard that question.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when you got there on the 13th; is that correct?

# 15 A:

That's correct.

# 16 Q:

Mr. Thompson, I want to show you a vehicle impound report which they marked as Civil 271. Have you seen that document before? (Witness reviews document.)

# 17 A:

Yes, I have.

# 18 Q:

That's the impound report prepared by your partner?

# 19 A:

Yes, it is.

# 20 Q:

Angela Guzman?

# 21 A:

Yes.

# 22 Q:

It was prepared on June 13, 1994, at 3:30 p.m.?

# 23 A:

Yes. I'm not familiar with this, though.

KEY QUOTE

# 24 Q:

Okay. It was prepared at 3:30 p.m. on June 13, 1994?

# 25 A:

Yes, it is.

# 26 Q:

And that vehicle impound report referred to the 1994 Ford Bronco parked out on the west side of Rockingham?

# 27 A:

It does.

# 28 Q:

And that impound report was prepared in the normal course and business of your work there, correct?

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Witness

Yes. Q. Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when he arrived there, did he not?

Establishes that Simpson was treated as a suspect — not merely a grieving relative — from the moment he returned home.

THE COURT

Sustained. The jury is to disregard that question.

Baker attempted to force the witness to call Vannatter a liar; the court shut it down, but the implication was planted.

Witness

Yes. I'm not familiar with this, though.

Thompson qualifies his identification of Civil 271 — he recognizes it but distances himself from its contents, limiting its evidentiary weight.

Evidence (1)

Civil 271

Vehicle impound report prepared by Officer Angela Guzman on June 13, 1994 at 3:30 p.m., referencing the 1994 Ford Bronco parked on the west side of Rockingham

introduced and reviewed by witness

Notable Exchanges (2)

MR. P. BAKER•Witness•THE COURT

Baker asked Thompson whether Vannatter 'would have lied to this jury' if he denied giving the handcuff order — objection sustained and jury instructed to disregard, but Baker immediately re-asked a cleaner version of the same question and got the confirmation anyway.

strategic

MR. P. BAKER•Witness

Baker walks Thompson through Civil 271 step by step, getting Thompson to authenticate the Bronco impound report despite Thompson noting he is 'not familiar with' the document.

methodical

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Detective Vannatter

prior inconsistent statement (implied)

Baker established through Thompson that Vannatter ordered Simpson handcuffed, creating a conflict with Vannatter's apparent prior testimony denying he gave that order.

Witness Demeanor

(Witness reviews document.)

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8788 • 28 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103