Redirect examination of William Bodziak (1 of 2)

📄 Redirect examination of William Bodziak (1 of 2) — Thursday, January 16, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-WILLIA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 43 of 57

◀ Direct examination of William Bodziak Redirect examination of William Bodziak ▶

Witness: William Bodziak
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 58

P. Baker briefly cross-examines FBI shoe print expert William Bodziak, probing the scope of his analysis and his relationship with fellow expert Gerald Richards. Baker attempts several lines of inquiry — including whether receipts for Bruno Magli shoes were found, why Rodger Martz isn't testifying, and whether Bodziak compared photos from different sources — but nearly every question is sustained on outside-the-scope objections. The examination ends mid-question on a technical point about FBI evidence labeling.

# 1 A:

Yes, sir. Yes.

# 2 MR. MEDVENE:

Thank you. I have nothing further.

# 3 THE COURT:

Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:

# 4 Q:

Good afternoon, Mr. Bodziak.

# 5 A:

Good afternoon.

# 6 Q:

Pleasure to see you again.

# 7 A:

Pleasure to see you.

# 8 Q:

Did you check my taxes when you went back there?

KEY QUOTE

# 9 A:

I forgot to do that. I'm sorry.

# 10 Q:

Hope you forget again. You haven't been paid anything by the plaintiffs' attorneys; is that right?

# 11 A:

No, I haven't.

# 12 Q:

Never submitted a bill, correct?

# 13 A:

No, I haven't.

# 14 Q:

Is there any standing order in the Bureau that agents are not supposed to testify in this case?

# 15 A:

I'm not aware of any.

# 16 Q:

You don't know any reason why Rodger Martz wouldn't be testifying in this case, do you?

# 17 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Relevance; materiality; outside the scope.

# 18 THE COURT:

Excuse me. The Clerk was whispering in my ear. (The Court reviews realtime screen.)

# 19 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 20 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You are friends with Gerald Richards, aren't you?

# 21 A:

I've known him since about 1971, I believe.

# 22 Q:

You actually recommended that he work on this case, right?

# 23 A:

Yes.

# 24 Q:

You guys had lunch together today?

# 25 A:

Yes, we did.

# 26 Q:

Over at the Double Tree, right?

# 27 A:

Yes, we did.

# 28 Q:

Okay.

# 29 A:

Probably like half the courtroom.

KEY QUOTE

# 30 MR. PETROCELLI:

Including Mr. Baker.

# 31 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, after you came to your preliminary conclusions during your work on the criminal case, you are aware an investigation was conducted by the LAPD and FBI to determine whether or not any receipts or sales slips could be found identifying OJ Simpson as a purchaser of Bruno Magli shoes; correct?

# 32 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Outside the scope; asked and answered, when the agent was previously here.

# 33 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 34 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You know there was no receipt found, right?

# 35 MR. MEDVENE:

Same objection. Counsel knows it's inappropriate.

# 36 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 37 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, Mr. Bodziak, you're aware there was an expert designated to testify as the person most knowledgeable of Bruno Magli shoes by the plaintiff?

# 38 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Outside the scope.

# 39 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 40 MR. MEDVENE:

Lack of relevance.

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You would agree, would you not, sir, that, as a result of your testimony in the criminal case, that there's a motive -- Strike that. You would agree, would you not, sir, that, if you would doctor a photograph at $18,000 a pop for OJ Simpson, that you'd probably put a Bruno Magli shoe on it, wouldn't you?

KEY QUOTE

# 42 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Outside the scope.

# 43 THE COURT:

Sustained. Jury will disregard that question.

# 44 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you ever asked do compare the shoes in the Scull photograph to the shoes in the Flammer photograph?

# 45 A:

I was never asked to do that.

KEY QUOTE

# 46 Q:

Were you ever asked to look at the newspaper article that appeared in the November 30 issue of Buffalo Bills -- something.

# 47 MR. GELBLUM:

Reports.

# 48 Q:

(BY MR. P. BAKER) -- Buffalo Bill Reports, to determine whether or not those were Bruno Magli shoes?

# 49 A:

No, I was not.

# 50 Q:

Were you ever provided with a black-and-white still of the photograph that appears in that newspaper report?

# 51 A:

No, I was not.

# 52 Q:

You were never asked to determine whether or not the shoes that appeared in either the Scull photos or the Flammer photos were size 12, correct?

# 53 A:

No.

# 54 Q:

That's not correct, or that's correct?

# 55 A:

I was not asked specifically to do that, no.

# 56 Q:

The photographs you received from the plaintiffs regarding the Flammer photograph were given a Q designation; is that right?

# 57 A:

That's correct.

# 58 Q:

What's the Q stand for?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

P. Baker

Did you check my taxes when you went back there?

Rare moment of humor between Baker and Bodziak, signaling a cordial prior relationship and relaxed opening tone.

P. Baker

You would agree, would you not, sir, that, if you would doctor a photograph at $18,000 a pop for OJ Simpson, that you'd probably put a Bruno Magli shoe on it, wouldn't you?

Baker attempts to plant the photo-doctoring theory before the jury even though it was immediately sustained and stricken — a deliberate speaking objection in question form.

Bodziak

Probably like half the courtroom.

Bodziak's casual quip about the Double Tree lunch deflates any suggestion of improper coordination.

Bodziak

I was never asked to do that.

Reveals limits on the scope of Bodziak's assignment — he never compared the Scull and Flammer photographs to each other.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Flammer photograph — photo of OJ Simpson allegedly wearing Bruno Magli shoes, designated with 'Q' prefix by plaintiffs

discussed

Informal

Scull photograph — separate photo of OJ Simpson allegedly wearing Bruno Magli shoes

referenced, comparison to Flammer photo noted as never requested

Informal

November 30 issue of Buffalo Bills Reports newspaper — contains a photograph possibly showing Bruno Magli shoes

referenced, Bodziak was never asked to analyze it

Notable Exchanges (2)

P. Baker•Bodziak•Petrocelli

Baker asks Bodziak about having lunch with Gerald Richards at the Double Tree; Bodziak quips it was 'probably like half the courtroom,' and Petrocelli chimes in that Baker himself was there.

light/strategic — Baker tried to suggest improper coordination, witnesses and opposing counsel defused it immediately

P. Baker•Medvene•Court

Baker attempts to ask about the absence of any receipt identifying OJ as a Bruno Magli purchaser; sustained twice in a row as outside the scope.

strategic — Baker getting the facts before the jury via the question itself

Light Moments (2)

P. Baker / Bodziak

Baker asks Bodziak if he checked Baker's taxes while back at the FBI; Bodziak apologizes for forgetting.

Bodziak / Petrocelli

After Baker highlights the Double Tree lunch as potential coordination, Bodziak notes 'probably like half the courtroom' was there, and Petrocelli adds that Baker himself was among them.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Bodziak

bias/coordination

Baker highlights that Bodziak recommended Gerald Richards to work on the case and that they had lunch together the day of testimony, implying coordinated testimony.

⚔ Plaintiff experts generally

scope limitation

Baker establishes that Bodziak was never asked to compare the Scull and Flammer photos, never asked to analyze the Buffalo Bills Reports newspaper photo, and never asked to verify shoe size — suggesting the plaintiffs' shoe-print case was deliberately narrowed.

Objections

6 objections (6 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8820 • 58 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103