Defense attorney Leonard examines former LAPD Detective Tippin (now an investigator for the plaintiffs' private firm Gailey & Associates) about two key matters: a June 1994 phone log entry recording that Sergeant Merrin received a call from an unknown woman around 10:30 PM on the night of the murders asking about a double homicide in West LA, and Tippin's June 13 interview of Kato Kaelin. Leonard also extracts testimony that Kaelin told Tippin Nicole Brown Simpson 'used coke.' The proceeding ends mid-examination with the beginning of questions about Nicole's friends.
# 2 Q: How are you employed?
# 3 A: I'm currently employed for the Orange County District Attorney's office as an investigator.
# 4 Q: How long have you had that position, sir?
# 5 A: For approximately a year.
# 6 Q: Now, have you ever worked for Gailey & Associates?
# 8 Q: Okay. And when did you first start working for Gailey & Associates?
# 9 A: I went to work for Gailey & Associates August 6, 1995.
# 10 Q: Okay. And Gailey & Associates is a private investigation firm; is that right, sir?
# 12 Q: Now, you were a Los Angeles police officer for some period of time prior to working for Grailey & Associates; is that correct?
# 14 Q: How long were you employed at the Los Angeles Police Department?
# 15 A: Twenty-six years.
# 16 Q: And what was the highest rank that you attained, sir?
# 18 Q: Okay. And did you have any officer rank: Sergeant, lieutenant, captain?
# 19 A: It was rank of Detective 3.
# 20 Q: Okay. So you weren't a lieutenant or captain?
# 22 Q: And you were assigned to what department during the investigation of the Simpson case?
# 23 A: I was assigned to robbery/homicide division, in the homicide special section.
# 24 Q: And you were involved to some degree in the investigation of the crimes at 875 South Bundy; is that right, sir?
# 26 Q: Now, were you ever engaged by the plaintiff in this case to investigate anything dealing with the civil case, sir?
# 27 A: Gailey Associates was hired by the firm, yes.
# 28 Q: Okay. And did you take part in any investigation?
# 29 A: At the very beginning, yes.
# 30 Q: And as part of that investigation, did you have some contact with a fellow -- or your former colleagues at the Los Angeles Police Department?
# 32 Q: Okay. Now, you certainly utilized the knowledge that you had obtained from your personal involvement in the criminal investigation when you were at the Los Angeles Police Department, in your assistance of the plaintiffs in this case; is that right, sir?
# 33 A: I would say so, yes.
# 34 Q: There's no question about that in your mind, is there?
# 36 Q: Now, one of the things that you did when you were involved in the investigation of the killings at 875 South Bundy was that you interviewed the watch commander who was on duty on the night of June 12, 1994, correct?
# 38 Q: Did you interview an individual named Sergeant Merrin?
# 41 A: I don't remember that, no.
# 42 Q: Now, one of the things that -- are you saying you didn't do it or you just don't have a memory of it right now?
# 43 A: I don't believe I did, but I don't have any recollection as to it. If there's a report I could refresh my memory, maybe it would help, but I don't believe I did, no.
# 44 Q: Let me see if I can refresh it in another way. Do you remember having a discussion with a Sergeant Merrin when he said to you --
# 45 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
# 46 MR. LEONARD: I'm trying to refresh his recollection. They've done that several times
# 47 MR. PETROCELLI: You can't get into the contact, Your Honor.
# 48 MR. GELBLUM: They have done this several times.
# 49 THE COURT: If you want to refresh his recollection show him something.
# 50 MR. LEONARD: Show him something?
# 51 MR. GELBLUM: Without publishing.
# 52 MR. LEONARD: Fine. May I approach?
# 54 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) I'll show you what will be marked next in order.
# 56 MR. LEONARD: 2308. (The instrument herein described as a handwritten chronological log was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2308.)
# 57 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) I show you that document 2308 and ask you to take a look at it and let me --
# 58 MR. LEONARD: You know what, before I do that let me show it to you.
# 59 MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
# 60 MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry, Mr. Gelblum. (Mr. Gelblum reviews Exhibit 2308.)
# 61 Q: I show you what's been marked as 2308. Take a look at that, take your time, and I'll ask you some questions. (Witness reviews Exhibit 2308.)
# 63 Q: First of all, is that your handwriting, sir?
# 65 Q: Now, does that refresh your -- strike that. In generic terms, what is that?
# 66 A: This is my chronological log that I hand wrote. It's not a statement, it's a chronological log.
# 67 Q: I understand. But that is part of the record of the report that you created in this case to document, at least in part, what you did and what you found out, correct?
# 68 A: It's my chronological log, yes.
# 69 Q: It's a report that you prepared, correct?
# 71 Q: All right. And you prepared that in the regular course of your duties and your employment as a police officer; isn't that right, sir?
# 73 Q: And that's a report that you regularly prepare, don't you, something like that?
# 74 A: A chronological log as to what I did, yes.
# 75 Q: You've done hundreds of those in cases haven't you, sir?
# 76 A: I wouldn't say hundreds, but I've done a lot.
# 77 Q: Okay. Now, having read that, does that refresh your recollection, sir, that you interviewed a Sergeant Merrin?
# 79 Q: Did you interview a Sergeant Merrin?
# 80 A: According to my log, I talked with him on the phone, yes.
# 81 Q: Do you recall Sergeant Merrin telling you that he had received a call around 10:30 on June 12 -- on the evening of June 12, 1994, in which a woman asked him if there had been a reported double homicide in West L.
A., do you remember that?
# 82 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
# 83 MR. LEONARD: It's in the police report.
# 84 MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the phone call is another level of hearsay.
# 85 (Court reviews real time screen.) # 86 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 87 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me make sure I understand your testimony. That's your handwriting, correct?
# 89 Q: Have you ever heard of a Sergeant Merrin?
# 90 A: It's in my log, but I don't remember specifically talking with him, no.
# 91 Q: Do you remember generally talking with him?
# 92 A: Here again, there was so much going on. It's in my log so I obviously talked with him, but I do not generally remember talking to him, no.
# 93 Q: Do you have any reason to believe that you would have put something in your log that you had not heard from Sergeant Merrin, sir?
# 94 A: Well, I'm not disputing the fact that I talked with him. I just don't remember it.
# 95 Q: And that document doesn't refresh your recollection?
# 97 Q: Do you have any memory problems, sir?
# 99 Q: What does EOW mean?
# 101 Q: What indication on that document as to the end of watch on June 12, 1994, say?
# 102 A: It states end of watch was at 10:45 p.m.
KEY QUOTE # 103 Q: Okay. And Sergeant Merrin had indicated that he had received this call prior to the end of watch, correct, sir?
# 104 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
# 105 THE COURT: The witness may testify what's on that document.
# 106 MR. GELBLUM: Why, Your Honor?
# 107 THE COURT: Excuse me. Because it's --
# 108 MR. GELBLUM: Not as to what somebody else told him.
# 109 THE COURT: If it's in that report, that report can come in, it's part of official records.
# 110 MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
# 111 A: Would you repeat the question.
# 112 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Yes. At what time does -- is it not true that Sergeant Merrin indicated, at least according to your official report there, that he had received this call prior to the EOW or the end of the watch, and the end of watch was at 10:45 p.m., sir?
# 114 Q: It also indicates in there that he had received a call from a woman asking if a double homicide had been reported in West LA; isn't that right, sir?
# 116 Q: Now, you were involved, obviously, in running down some clues in this case, correct?
# 118 Q: And, in fact, the date of that notation is July 7, is it not, sir?
# 120 Q: You know -- sir, you know that there were no other double homicides in West LA on June 12 -- on the evening of June 12, other than the one that occurred at 875 South Bundy, don't you?
# 121 A: I don't know that for sure, but I suspect that's true, yes.
# 122 Q: You would bet on it, wouldn't you, sir.
# 123 MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
# 124 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 125 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any reason to doubt that there were no others, sir?
# 127 Q: Okay. Your best recollection -- your best knowledge, as you sit on this stand, there was only one and that was at 875 South Bundy, correct?
# 129 Q: I take it you followed up on that clue, did you?
# 130 A: No, not that I recall.
# 131 Q: Okay. Now, you also were involved in the interview of an individual named Brian Kato Kaelin, correct?
# 133 Q: You interviewed Kaelin at about what time on the morning of June 13, 1994?
# 134 A: I didn't speak to him on the morning of June 13.
# 135 Q: When did you speak to him, sir?
# 136 A: It would have been the early afternoon.
# 138 A: Approximately 1, 1:30 p.m.
# 139 Q: You were with your partner, Carr; is that right?
# 141 Q: That was Detective Carr?
# 143 Q: You created a report from the interview?
# 145 Q: And you created a handwritten report, correct?
# 147 Q: All right. Let me show you what has been previously marked as 2198. Take a look at that. I'm going to ask you some questions. (Witness reviews Exhibit 2198.)
# 148 A: The first page is not mine.
# 149 Q: Well, let's stop right there then. Do you have any idea who's writing that is?
# 151 Q: I want you to review the document, just the first page, and tell me if you can tell by the content of the document or any other indication on the document who created it? I ask you now if you recognize the handwriting. Now, I'm asking you another question. Can you tell by the content who created that document? Just the first page. (Witness reviews document.)
# 152 A: I don't know who wrote this.
# 153 Q: All right. Tell you what. Tear off that page. (Witness complies)
# 154 Q: Now, take a look at the rest, the remainder of the document.
# 155 MR. LEONARD: For the record, the witness removed the first page of what has been marked for identification as 2198.
# 156 A: This is my handwritten notes with Mr. Kaelin.
# 157 Q: Okay. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you say this, you're referring, for the record, to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-page handwritten documents that remains after you've torn away the first page of 21 --
MR. P. BAKER: 98.
# 158 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) -- 2198?
# 160 Q: You were subpoenaed to appear here today?
# 162 Q: When did you receive that subpoena?
# 163 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
# 164 MR. LEONARD: I'll prove it up, Your Honor?
# 165 A: I believe it was possibly December 15.
# 166 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I take it that upon receiving the subpoena you took it upon yourself to try to prepare yourself to testify in this case; is that right, sir?
# 167 A: I wasn't told exactly what I was going to testify to, no.
# 168 Q: Did you bother, for instance, to -- I assume you had in mind that it would be about the Simpson case, right? I mean about your investigation in the criminal case. Did that thought enter your mind, sir?
# 169 A: Well, that could encompass very many things.
# 170 Q: Okay. Well, let me ask you this. When you got the subpoena, did you contact -- did you have any discussion with the plaintiffs' attorney?
# 171 A: I talked with them, yes.
# 172 Q: Okay. Did you ask them what they thought you might be asked by defense counsel?
# 173 A: I was told that I was going to probably be questioned as to a statement.
# 174 Q: And it was this statement, right?
# 175 A: I believe it was, yes.
# 176 Q: And so you naturally reviewed this statement before getting on the stand?
# 178 Q: Okay. You have it pretty well in mind, do you, sir?
# 180 Q: Is there anything you think needs to be corrected, anything -- having reviewed the statement, anything you think is incorrect?
# 182 Q: And again, you had plenty of opportunities to look at it and make sure that it comported with your memory, correct?
# 184 Q: In fact, you used it to refresh your memory, right?
# 186 Q: Now, what's been marked as 2198 is your report of your interview with Kato Kaelin, correct?
# 188 Q: By the way, you say this was there -- this occurred at -- and I guess you can refresh your recollection, it occurred at 3:30 in the afternoon on June 13, correct?
# 190 Q: That's right at the top and it's dated, right?
# 192 Q: By the way, that's the proper way to create a report, you put a date and time; isn't that right, sir?
# 194 Q: Well, that's proper police procedure?
# 196 Q: You need to know when the report was taken and ideally what time it was taken, right?
# 198 Q: And a report that doesn't contain that is a deficient report; isn't that right? Wouldn't you agree with that?
# 199 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, calls for conclusion.
# 200 MR. LEONARD: Based on previous testimony.
# 201 THE COURT: Sustained. You may argue it, counsel, but --
# 202 MR. LEONARD: I'm asking a police officer --
# 203 THE COURT: You may ask him about this one
# 204 MR. LEONARD: I will.
# 205 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, certainly as of -- in your mind, as of 1:30 in the afternoon on June 13, 1994, Mr. Simpson was a suspect in the killings at 875 South Bundy; isn't that true, sir?
# 206 A: I would say he would be one, yes.
KEY QUOTE # 207 Q: Okay. Who were the other suspects?
# 208 A: At that point in time I couldn't tell you. I didn't know enough about the investigation, plus it wasn't my investigation.
# 209 Q: When you set out to interview Mr. Kaelin, did you feel you knew enough about the investigation to undertake the interview of this witness?
# 211 Q: Really. Did you tell anybody about that?
# 212 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
# 213 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you tell any other police officer that you didn't think you had enough information to conduct an interview of Mr. Kaelin at the time you did it, sir? Did you do that?
# 214 A: Well, you have to understand --
# 215 Q: Can you answer my question yes or no, please, and then you can explain it. Can you answer yes or no, did you tell any other police officer, any supervisor, that you felt that you didn't have enough information to interview Mr. Kaelin as you've just told the jury.
# 216 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
# 217 MR. LEONARD: Yes or no?
# 218 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 219 MR. GELBLUM: It's argumentative as well.
# 220 MR. LEONARD: It goes to --
# 221 THE COURT: What's the relevance of whether he told anybody. Sustained.
# 222 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) All right. You didn't have enough information. Did you know, sir, that it would be important in interviewing this witness to account for every movement that he observed of Mr. Simpson; did you think that was important at the time?
# 223 A: Well, I have to go back.
# 224 Q: Can you answer yes or no, sir?
# 226 Q: So right now you don't -- as you sit here, you don't remember or you don't know if you thought it was important at the time that you interviewed Mr. Kaelin to be able to ask Mr. Kaelin about all of Mr. Simpson's movements on June 12, 1994, that he observed; is that what you want to leave with the jury?
# 227 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, whether this witness thought a particular aspect is important or not.
# 228 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is cross-examination. I want to get --
# 229 THE COURT: This is cross-examination?
KEY QUOTE # 230 MR. LEONARD: Yes. Yeah, it is. And I want to ask him his state of mind when he created this report.
# 231 MR. GELBLUM: Relevance, Your Honor.
# 232 MR. LEONARD: I'll show how it's relevant.
# 233 MR. GELBLUM: Can we have an offer of proof.
# 234 THE COURT: This witness hasn't testified before.
# 235 MR. LEONARD: He's worked for the plaintiffs.
# 236 THE COURT: Doesn't make it cross-examination.
# 237 MR. LEONARD: I ask that he be treated as an adverse witness.
# 238 THE COURT: You may treat him as an adverse witness, but it's still not cross-examination.
# 239 MR. LEONARD: Well, I think --
# 240 THE COURT: It's not. You're offering him as a witness.
# 241 MR. LEONARD: I want to lead him, and I assume you're going to --
# 242 THE COURT: You may lead him, but it's not cross-examination. That's the only point I want to make.
# 243 MR. LEONARD: Okay. Can I have a ruling on the question?
# 244 THE COURT: If I can find it.
# 245 MR. LEONARD: You know what, I'll withdraw it.
# 246 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) You did ask Mr. Kaelin questions about what he observed of Mr. Simpson's movements that night, did you not?
# 247 A: I asked him a number of questions about a lot of things.
# 248 Q: Don't you want to answer my question, sir?
# 249 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, move that it be stricken.
# 250 THE COURT: That's a legitimate question. Overruled.
# 251 A: Would you repeat that again. I'm sorry.
# 252 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Yes. Did you, among other things, ask Mr. Kaelin about his observations of Mr. Simpson's movements that night, sir? Can you answer that yes or no.
# 254 Q: That was one of the goals you had in mind when you set forth to interview Mr. Kaelin, was it not, sir?
# 255 A: That was one of my goals, to find out a lot of things, yes.
# 256 Q: Thank you. And one of the things you wanted to find out was Mr. Simpson's movements that night as observed by Mr. Kaelin, right?
# 257 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered.
# 258 THE COURT: It has been, but just to keep things moving, overruled.
# 259 MR. LEONARD: I appreciated that, Your Honor.
# 261 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, did you listen carefully to what Mr. Kaelin told you, sir?
# 263 Q: Did you record carefully what Mr. Kaelin told you, sir?
# 264 A: As best I could, yes.
# 265 Q: Okay. And you recorded in your notes that Mr. Kaelin saw OJ Simpson enter through the front after they came back from McDonald's, did you not, sir? And that's on page 26 of your report at the bottom.
# 266 A: Yes, that's on my statement.
# 267 Q: That's what Kaelin told you, isn't it?
# 268 A: I assume he did, yes.
# 269 Q: Well, you would have no reason to put that in there if he didn't tell you that, would you?
# 272 MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
MR. P. BAKER: Wait a second.
# 273 MR. LEONARD: Or maybe I do. (Mr. P. Baker and Mr. Leonard converse sotto voce.)
# 274 MR. LEONARD: Good thing he's here.
KEY QUOTE # 275 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) You also, as part of your discussions with Mr. Kaelin, and as reported in your report, you were asking background questions about the victims, at least about Nicole Brown Simpson, as well as Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
# 276 A: I was trying to learn as much as I could about everyone, yes.
# 277 Q: And one of the things that you were doing is you were asking questions, at least in general terms, about Nicole Brown Simpson's lifestyle; for instance, her friends, that type of thing, isn't that right, sir?
# 279 Q: And if you look on page -- this is the fifth page, sir, of your report. Excuse me, it would be the sixth page. You see a notation on the report, it says friends, you see that?
# 281 Q: Dash Nicole dash used coke. Do you see that, sir?
# 283 Q: What does that indicate there, sir, what were you tying to say in the report, what did Kaelin tell you in that report?
# 284 MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor, and hearsay.
# 285 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 286 A: Well, there must have been a question, and I don't know specifically what the question was, but it had to do with use of narcotics or something, and he said she used coke.
KEY QUOTE # 287 Q: (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, there's also a list of friends down there. Do you see that right underneath that?
# 289 Q: And there's a list. Is Cora Fischman -- that's the first friend listed; isn't that right, sir?