Redirect examination of Officer Thompson

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

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\14\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-OFFICE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 41 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Officer Thompson Cross-examination of Officer Thompson ▶

Witness: Donald Thompson
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 • Utterances: 66

Plaintiff's attorney Medvene cross-examined Officer Thompson about the vehicle impound report (Exhibit 271) for O.J. Simpson's Ford Bronco. The central issue was an anomaly in the report: battery and alternator were checked as present, yet the hood was never opened and the vehicle was never unlocked during Thompson's watch. The testimony revealed the report was prepared by Thompson's partner, Officer Guzman, raising questions about the accuracy and foundation of entries on the report.

# 1 A:

Yes, it was.

MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions.

# 2 THE COURT:

Cross-examine.

MR. P. BAKER: Move 271 into evidence, Judge.

# 3 THE COURT:

Received. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 271.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

# 4 Q:

Officer Thompson -- I notice that on the impound report there's a check under the Y column for battery and generator?

# 5 A:

Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, Judge.

# 6 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 7 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain the circumstances under which those checks were put there?

MR. P. BAKER: No foundation that he knows.

# 8 THE COURT:

Testified he compared it. Overruled.

# 9 A:

Under those particular items -- you mentioned battery and alternator.

# 10 Q:

Yes, sir?

# 11 A:

Well, the vehicle impound report here states that there was a battery and an alternator that, in fact, should be unknown because --

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I'm going to object to this. It calls for hearsay. He just testified his partner prepared the report.

# 12 THE COURT:

Did you prepare it or your partner prepare it?

# 13 DONALD THOMPSON:

It was prepared by my partner, sir, but my partner and I are responsible for the report since both our names are on it.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 THE COURT:

Lay a foundation as to his personal knowledge.

# 15 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) What hours, approximately, were you at Rockingham on the morning of June 13?

# 16 A:

I arrived at Rockingham approximately at 8 o'clock in the morning and I left the scene about 3:45 that afternoon.

# 17 Q:

And what was your assignment in terms of the Bronco, and supervision and security of the Bronco?

# 18 A:

My assignment was to protect the Bronco and also to protect the property in general.

# 19 Q:

Did your -- did your fellow officer, Ms. Guzman, under your supervision, prepare the report that's been marked 271?

# 20 A:

Yes.

# 21 Q:

And did you sign on the report and write your name on the report?

# 22 A:

Yes. My name is on the report.

# 23 Q:

Was the report made in your presence?

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He hasn't said he filled out the report or saw it filled out.

# 24 THE COURT:

Well, so far you haven't reached a point of objection. Overruled.

# 25 A:

I'm sorry. Repeat the question again, please.

# 26 Q:

Yes. Was the report filled out by Officer Guzman in your presence?

# 27 A:

Yes.

# 28 Q:

Did you sign the report?

# 29 A:

No. Neither officer signs the report. We put our -- we print our names there.

# 30 Q:

Did you print your name there?

# 31 A:

My name isn't printed -- well, my name is printed on here but I didn't print my name on it, and we usually don't do that. One partner will print both officers' names on it. The officer completing the report will do that.

# 32 Q:

And who printed both officers' names on this?

# 33 A:

Officer Guzman did.

# 34 Q:

You told us the report was prepared in your presence and under your supervision?

# 35 A:

Yes, it was.

# 36 Q:

Was the vehicle, the Ford Bronco, ever opened in your presence between the time you arrived at Rockingham and the time you filled out the impound report?

# 37 A:

No, it wasn't.

# 38 Q:

Okay. Could you explain why battery and alternator were checked if the car and the hood were never opened?

MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, calls for speculation, calls for hearsay.

# 39 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 40 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Was the battery and hood ever opened?

MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.

# 41 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 42 A:

No.

# 43 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the car, to you, appear operable and workable?

# 44 A:

Yes, it did.

# 45 Q:

Did the car, in any way, appear to be stripped?

# 46 A:

No.

# 47 Q:

Did you assume the car had a battery and alternator in it?

# 48 A:

That assumption could be made, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 49 Q:

Did you make that assumption?

# 50 A:

No. I didn't make the assumption, no. My partner made the assumption.

MR. P. BAKER: Objection, move to strike.

KEY QUOTE

# 51 THE COURT:

Stricken. Jury to disregard that last answer.

# 52 Q:

When you sign or when you permitted your name -- strike that. You saw this report after it was filled out, did you not?

# 53 A:

Yes.

# 54 Q:

Did you believe at the time you signed the report that since the vehicle appeared not stripped and operable that it had a battery and accelerator -- or a battery and an alternator in it, even though the hood was never opened?

MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, misstates the testimony.

# 55 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 56 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the vehicle appear locked at all times, Officer Thompson, when you saw it at Rockingham from the time you came on duty to the time the impound report was filled out somewhere around 3:30?

# 57 A:

Yes, it did.

# 58 Q:

And did you ever see anyone attempt to unlock the vehicle?

# 59 A:

No, I didn't.

# 60 Q:

Did you ever see anyone inside the vehicle?

# 61 A:

No.

# 62 Q:

Did you ever attempt to unlock the vehicle?

# 63 A:

No, I didn't.

# 64 Q:

Did you ever open the hood?

# 65 A:

No.

# 66 Q:

Did you ever see anyone open the hood?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Officer Thompson

It was prepared by my partner, sir, but my partner and I are responsible for the report since both our names are on it.

Establishes shared responsibility for the report while distancing himself from its specific entries.

Officer Thompson

No. I didn't make the assumption, no. My partner made the assumption.

Attempt to shift responsibility for the battery/alternator entry to Guzman — immediately struck by the court.

Officer Thompson

That assumption could be made, yes.

Concedes the battery/alternator entries were assumptions, not verified observations — undermining the report's reliability.

Officer Thompson

No, it wasn't. [The vehicle was never opened]

Confirms the hood was never opened, making the battery/alternator entries in the report unverified and potentially inaccurate.

Evidence (1)

Defendants' 271

Vehicle impound report for the Ford Bronco, prepared by Officer Guzman with both officers' names, noting battery and alternator present

Moved into evidence by P. Baker, then challenged on cross regarding foundation for specific entries

Notable Exchanges (2)

Mr. Medvene•Officer Thompson•The Court

Thompson's answer blaming his partner for the assumption was immediately stricken and the jury was instructed to disregard it, suggesting the witness was trying to deflect responsibility in a way the court found improper.

revealing

Mr. Medvene•Officer Thompson

Medvene methodically established that the Bronco was locked, the hood was never opened, no one was seen inside, yet battery and alternator were checked on the report — creating an unexplained discrepancy.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Officer Thompson

internal inconsistency / lack of personal knowledge

Medvene exposed that Thompson never opened the hood or unlocked the Bronco, yet the impound report he co-signed certified the presence of a battery and alternator — entries that could only be assumptions, not observations.

Objections

8 objections (3 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8789 • 66 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103