Direct examination of Sgt. Merrin

📄 Direct examination of Sgt. Merrin — Wednesday, January 8, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\8\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-SGT-MERR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 37 of 57

◀ Sidebar: testimony admissibility Direct examination of Dennis Fung ▶

Witness: Sgt. Merrin
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 • Utterances: 84

Sergeant Merrin, a patrol watch commander for the Wilshire division, testified that he received a phone call around 10-10:30 p.m. on June 12, 1994 from a woman claiming to be associated with Channel 4, asking if police were 'sitting on two bodies on the west side.' The defense used this to suggest media or others had early knowledge of the Bundy murders, while the plaintiff's cross-examination worked to undercut the inference by establishing Merrin had no knowledge of what the caller was actually referring to and that his area didn't even cover Brentwood.

# 1 A:

Yes, sir.

# 2 Q:

Are you employed?

# 3 A:

Employed by the Los Angeles Police Department. I'm a Sergeant. I'm in charge of the West Valley vice unit.

# 4 Q:

How long have you been employed by the Los Angeles Police Department?

# 5 A:

24 and a half years.

# 6 Q:

Directing your attention to June 12, 1994, particularly on the evening of that night, were you assigned to the West LA division?

# 7 A:

No, sir, I was not.

# 8 Q:

Where were you assigned, sir?

# 9 A:

I was the patrol watch commander for Wilshire community police station.

# 10 Q:

Now, just explain in brief terms what a watch commander is?

# 11 A:

Basically that's the individual that's responsible for that particular watch, that particular time frame. I was the p.m. watch commander. I was responsible for the officers that were patroling Wilshire from approximately 2 in the afternoon 'til 10:30 at night.

# 12 Q:

Now, again, directing your attention to June 12, 1994, in particular around the time of 10 to 10:30 p.m., did you receive a phone call from a woman who asked you if a double homicide on the west side was being handled? Do you recall that, sir?

# 13 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection, Your Honor, calls for hearsay.

# 14 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 15 A:

I received a phone call from a female. It basically -- with that line on the conversation.

# 16 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) She asked you if a double homicide on the west side of Los Angeles was being handled, correct, sir?

# 17 A:

Not a double homicide. She said that -- she asked me if we were sitting on two bodies on the west side?

# 18 Q:

What does a double 187 mean, sir?

# 19 A:

It means that there was two people that had been killed.

# 20 Q:

What does a 187 term mean in police jargon?

# 21 A:

Murder.

# 22 Q:

Homicide, right?

# 23 A:

Right.

# 24 Q:

Did you tell a Detective Tippin on approximately July -- on July 7, 1994, that a woman had called at about 10 to 10:30 p.m. on June 12 and asked if a double 186 was being handled on the west side.

# 25 THE COURT:

Do you know what a 186 is?

# 26 Q:

187. Excuse me.

# 27 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you, Your Honor.

# 28 A:

During the conversation, yes, it did get around to that, but the original portion of the conversation was she asked me if we were sitting on two bodies on the west side.

# 29 Q:

Now, the woman represented to you that she was -- was somehow associated with Channel 4; is that correct?

# 30 A:

That's correct.

# 31 Q:

Were there any double homicides on the west side other than the one that occurred at 875 South Bundy on the evening of June 12, 1994, sir?

# 32 A:

Not to my knowledge.

KEY QUOTE

# 33 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you.

# 34 THE COURT:

Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

# 35 Q:

You have no information of any kind, do you, Sergeant Merrin, that whatever the call was about had anything at all to do with the murders of Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

# 36 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, calls for speculation. (Court reviewed realtime computer screen.)

# 37 THE COURT:

In the form in which it is asked, sustained.

# 38 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You have no personal information that whoever called was referring to the murders of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman, do you?

# 39 MR. LEONARD:

Same objection.

# 40 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have any idea or any personal knowledge what the caller was referring to?

# 42 MR. LEONARD:

Same objection.

# 43 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 44 A:

No, sir, I do not.

# 45 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And you received calls as watch commander several times a day asking whether or not you've heard of any murders or crimes that have gone on in the area that you have any association with?

# 46 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I object as irrelevant and vague.

# 47 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 48 A:

Yes, sir, I do.

# 49 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You receive many calls a day asking if there are any murders by the police reporter's?

# 50 A:

At least 12.

# 51 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, irrelevant and vague.

# 52 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 53 A:

At least 12 calls a day from the news, the press, different news rooms.

KEY QUOTE

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Does the Wilshire area cover Brentwood?

# 55 A:

No, sir, it does not.

# 56 MR. MEDVENE:

Nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY

# 57 Q:

Mr. Medvene asked you if you received calls on occasion from reporter's about murders, correct? If there are any murders reported, right? Remember him just asking you that?

# 58 A:

Yes, sir, I certainly do.

# 59 Q:

This caller didn't ask you if any murders had been reported. She asked you if you had been sitting on two bodies that had been found on the west side; isn't that correct, sir?

# 60 A:

That's correct.

# 61 MR. LEONARD:

No further questions. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY

# 62 Q:

And you had no knowledge as you took the call of any murders in the Wilshire area that you have anything to do with; is that correct?

# 63 A:

That's correct.

# 64 Q:

And you have nothing to do with -- the watch commander shift of Wilshire has nothing to do with Brentwood; isn't that correct?

# 65 A:

That's correct.

# 66 MR. MEDVENE:

Nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY

# 67 Q:

I asked you before on direct examination if you were aware of any other double homicides on the west side other than the one that occurred at 875 South Bundy. Your answer was you were not; is that right, sir?

# 68 A:

That's correct.

# 69 Q:

Okay. And I take it you followed up after you got this phone call about whether or not there were any other homicides; is that right, sir?

# 70 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.

# 71 THE COURT:

You may reopen.

# 72 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You followed up, didn't you?

# 73 A:

I followed up, yes.

# 74 Q:

You found out there hadn't been; isn't that right?

# 75 A:

That's correct.

# 76 Q:

By the way, you know this phone call came in certainly before 10:45 'cause that's when you left that night, right?

# 77 A:

That's correct.

# 78 Q:

That was the end of watch, EOW?

# 79 A:

That's correct.

# 80 Q:

Thank you.

# 81 MR. LEONARD:

No further questions.

# 82 MR. MEDVENE:

No further questions.

# 83 THE COURT:

Thank you. You may be excused.

# 84 MR. BAKER:

Dennis Fung. DENNIS FUNG, previously called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, previously sworn, testified as follows:

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Merrin

She asked me if we were sitting on two bodies on the west side?

The specific phrasing — 'sitting on' rather than asking if murders had occurred — is the crux of the defense's argument that the caller had inside knowledge of the murders before they were publicly reported.

Merrin

At least 12 calls a day from the news, the press, different news rooms.

Plaintiff used this to contextualize the call as routine press inquiry, undermining the defense implication that the Channel 4 call was unusual or suspicious.

Merrin

Not to my knowledge.

Confirms there were no other double homicides on the west side that night, making the Bundy murders the only plausible referent for the caller's question.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Phone call received by Sergeant Merrin around 10-10:30 p.m. on June 12, 1994 from a woman claiming Channel 4 affiliation, asking about 'two bodies on the west side'

discussed

Informal

Statement Merrin gave to Detective Tippin on July 7, 1994 regarding the phone call

referenced for prior consistent statement

Notable Exchanges (3)

Leonard•Merrin

On redirect, Leonard drew out the distinction between routine press murder inquiries (asking 'if any murders had been reported') versus the specific phrasing the caller used ('sitting on two bodies'), sharpening the implication that the caller already knew bodies existed.

strategic

Medvene•Merrin

Medvene established on cross that Merrin had no personal knowledge the call related to the Goldman/Brown murders, and that Wilshire division had no jurisdiction over Brentwood, neutralizing the defense implication.

strategic

Fujisaki•Leonard

Judge Fujisaki corrected Leonard's reference to a '186' code, prompting Leonard to correct himself to '187.' A minor but notable moment.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Fujisaki

Judge Fujisaki interjected mid-question to ask 'Do you know what a 186 is?' after Leonard misstated the penal code, catching the error before Leonard corrected himself to 187.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Merrin

contextualization/minimization

Medvene established that Merrin received at least 12 press calls per day asking about murders, framing the Channel 4 call as routine rather than evidence of insider knowledge.

Objections

8 objections (3 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8758 • 84 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103