Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG
Dr. Baden, a couple of preliminary questions. No. 1, I have never retained you on behalf of the District Attorney's office to review any case of our office; is that correct?
In fact, I reminded you our only previous professional contact was, you were retained by a lawyer representing a physician I was investigating in a case of possible physician assisted suicide, and that was our contact, a brief telephone conversation about some of your findings. Do you recall that, sir?
You've never been an expert witness on behalf of our office in a case in which I've been the prosecutor?
The question was, you have never testified on behalf of our office in a case in which I've been the prosecutor, correct?
And, in fact, doctor, you have testified on behalf of our office in trial on only one incident, the Boggs case, although you've testified in two separate trials; isn't that correct, sir?
Sir, you said that Kathy Evelyn Smith's case, the Belushi case, you testified at trial. That's your recollection?
Didn't she plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and that you testified at the preliminary hearing, not at the trial, sir, there was no jury; isn't that correct?
I remember being cross-examined by Mr. Weitzman and being examined by Mr. Montagna. I remember it as a trial. Maybe it's a different name for it.
If it wasn't a trial, if there wasn't a jury, if it was a preliminary hearing, then it would be correct to say, isn't it, sir, that you've only testified on behalf of our office arising out of one case for the Ellis Green death?
I have testified at trials where there are no juries. I've testified at bench trials.
Mr. Kelberg, you know better than I what happened with Mr. Belushi. I testified at a grand jury. I testified in some kind of a--some kind of a court setting. Maybe it wasn't a trial.
Doctor, please listen to the question carefully. Sir, is it accurate to say that you have testified in trial with a jury present on behalf of our office only in the cases arising out of the death of Ellis Green, the Boggs, Hanson, Hawkins case prosecuted by Mr. MacKenzie? Isn't that correct, sir?
I said to you I don't know that. I remember testifying at the Belushi what I thought was a trial.
Have you been retained by our office at any time since 1989 for any case other than the Boggs, Hanson, Hawkins case?
My question was, sir, have you been--and please listen carefully. Have you been retained by our office since 1989 on any case other than the Boggs, Hanson, Hawkins trials arising out of the death of Ellis Green in 1988?
Doctor, how much money have you been paid for your involvement in the Simpson case to this point in time?
Well, you said that you've been out in Los Angeles for about 70 days since the middle of June; is that correct?
You did work on this case well before coming out here in June for this 70-day period, didn't you, sir?
Prior to coming to Los Angeles in June, sir, how many hours have you spent on this case?
Doctor, is it correct to say that since June of `95, you've been out here for 70 days--
--or 70 days from the time you first got involved in the case and came out on June 16th?
All right. Other than those 70 days then, sir, how many hours have you spent on the case?
Oh, I would imagine a hundred, 200 hours in New York City from when I was in New York for which I didn't bill.
Now, sir, you said on direct that you've spent at least 200 hours on the phone with Mr. Shapiro on the case. Was that accurate testimony?
Now, sir, is it your usual billing rate for parties that retain you 250 to $300 a hour?
So if you were to charge for those 200 hours of phone calls, that would be another $75,000--I'm sorry--$60,000 if it's $300 an hour; isn't that correct?
Doctor, let me briefly move to another area, and I'll come back to this. In Mr. Cochran's opening statement, he referred to you as one of the foremost pathologists in the United States. Do you agree that that is an accurate description of you?
I don't characterize myself--I'm a forensic pathologist. There aren't too many forensic pathologists around in this country and I'm one of a small group of forensic pathologists.
Do you consider him one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the United States?
My question, sir, is, do you consider Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran to be one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the United States?
Now, doctor, you--do you consider yourself one of the foremost pathologists in--forensic pathologists in the area of time of death determination?
I consider myself an ordinary forensic pathologist trying to do what we're taught to do and what our experience teaches us to do as best we can.
Do you consider yourself expert as a forensic pathologist in determination of time of death?
I think as much as all forensic pathologists have expertise and experience in determining time of death.
And since I've been at it longer than most, I have a little more experience than most. But I don't consider myself foremost in anything. I'm just trying to do the best I can.
May I borrow yours then, because I assume that's going to be the most up-to-date.
Your Honor, I have a document, curriculum vitae, M. Baden, Md. may this be marked People's next in order?
And that is in fact the curriculum vitae you provided to Mr. Shapiro to provide to us?
In fact, doctor, why don't you hold on to that copy and I'll use--I think I have another one. And, doctor, this is the same curriculum vitae that was used by Mr. MacKenzie in the Hawkins, Hanson case when you recently testified; isn't that correct?
Now, sir, you on--in this document, you include your professional publications, don't you?
Have you ever published an article in any forensic pathology text on the subject of time of death determination?
Have you ever published an article in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of sharp force injuries, including stab wounds?
Doctor, have you ever published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology textbook on the subject of blunt force trauma?
Have you ever published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology textbook on the subject of blood spatter analysis?
Have you ever published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology textbook on crime scene collection?
Doctor, have you ever published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of shoeprint analysis?
Have you ever published anything in any peer review journal on any of the topics I just gave you?
In the first edition, you did publish a chapter. You were a contributor to a chapter in that book, weren't you, sir?
And in fact, that is what you claim to be your primary area of specialty within the field of forensic pathology; isn't that the case?
It's the area that I did most of my publishing when I was in New York City and we used to see a lot of drug abuse deaths. So that was the area that I had special interest in.
And, sir, when you say that's where you published most of your materials in, in your curriculum vitae, you list 80 publications, don't you?
And, doctor, when did you publish--well, if you'll look at your curriculum vitae, item 73 is published in the journal of trauma in 1979. Do you see that?
And then the next--starting with `74 through `80--I'm sorry--`74 through `79 go through the period of 1980, `81, `83, `85, correct?
Now, sir, what have you published since you left the medical examiner's office in New York City in 1985?
Well, I wrote a book that you may have and I'm in the process of writing a textbook.
The book that you wrote you've told us about, you gave the title as unnatural deaths, confessions of a medical examiner; is that correct?
You would not hold this out as the kind of forensic pathology textbook, for example, that Spitz and Fisher's medical legal investigation of death is, would you, sir?
Now, sir, when you--you've testified at least a thousand times in your 30-year career, haven't you, sir?
And, sir, you're commonly asked since you wrote this book, aren't you, on direct examination the title of the book?
When you're questioned by the party calling you as a witness, you're commonly asked to give the title of this book, aren't you?
And don't you, without variation, give the title as unnatural death when the question is asked by the party calling you?
No. Depends. The title is unnatural death. Its subtitle is confessions of a medical examiner.
Isn't it usually through cross-examination that you have to testify that it has a subtitle, confessions of a medical examiner?
Doctor, the subtitle, confessions of a medical examiner, does that imply that you have sins that you confess to in this book?
No, it doesn't. It implies that the United States has sins that we have to address.
KEY QUOTEI'm part of the problem, that there is--the--the investigation of unnatural death in this country, one of the themes in my book, is a national disgrace. That most instances where autopsies are done, investigations are done on people who are murdered--it's 75 people today who are murdered in the United States, and the great, great majority of those murders are being investigated by persons not trained to do those investigations by--including physicians who are trained to be good hospital doctors, but who are not trained forensic pathology, and that's why lots of mistakes occur in this country and it has a relevance to capital punishment.
Doctor, my question was, for example, you are critical of the autopsies performed by a number of doctors in cases that you use as case examples in this book; are you not?
Yeah. I do refer to cases, to autopsies including that of president Kennedy that were not done to the standards of a proper forensic pathologist.
You are critical of a number of physicians who performed autopsies in cases that you use in this book; isn't that correct, sir?
I'm critical of my early attitudes, you know, when I was starry-eyed and thought the media attention was a positive force.
But I--I don't think I--I'd have to look through it again. I haven't really read through it in a long time.
Well, maybe if we don't finish today and you're back tomorrow, over the evening, I'll be glad to lend you my copy--
Now, doctor, in fact, you alluded to it I think on direct exam, but let me go to an area in your book that discusses your attitude towards the press.
Did you write this in your book? "I liked the reporters and the television cameras. The fact that they were covering my work added importance to it, an extra dimension. The visibility counterbalanced the low esteem in which we were held by the rest of the medical profession. Forensic pathology was filled with misfits. It was considered a dumping ground for incompetence, a field that alcoholics descended into, a refuge for doctors who couldn't make it in the real world." Did you write that in your book, doctor?
Yes. And that reminds me. If that's being self-critical, I'm entering a field that is poorly thought of by other physicians.
I think the press has a duty to inform the public. I think that it's a siren's call that--for the forensic pathologist because it can only lead to trouble for the forensic pathologist.
KEY QUOTENot in the sense that you read from it. I think I have the highest regard for the press in the job that the press attempts to do, but I think that the medical examiner has to be very wary of the press and what's in the long run.
Doctor, have you appeared oh any television program since you've been retained in the Simpson defense to discuss this case?
As I recall, I--I came to Los Angeles on the--June 16th, and I did appear on a number of television programs immediately thereafter. But on June 22nd, after going to the Coroner's office and being finally allowed access to the various materials, I stopped talking, to having any contact with the press as I recall.
Did you appear, for example, on June 18th, 1994 on a CNN program, Newsmaker Saturday?
Okay. Yeah, I did. I don't know about that, but I did appear in the press between the 17th and the 22nd.
And did you as part of that interview say that your job as part of the forensic team is to assist in identifying evidence, collect evidence, document it and interpret it in the light of to make a judgment as to whether or not he, meaning Mr. Simpson, is guilty or not of the crime and whether there's mental reasons that comes long after the initial investigation as to whether he's being falsely accused? Did you say that, sir?
I don't recall that, but--I don't recall that. I mean, I don't think so. I don't think so.
All right. We're going to take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll be in recess for 15 minutes. Doctor, you may step down.
It's about 70 times 1500, which would be about a hundred thousand dollars.
Forensic pathology was filled with misfits. It was considered a dumping ground for incompetence, a field that alcoholics descended into, a refuge for doctors who couldn't make it in the real world.
No, it doesn't. It implies that the United States has sins that we have to address.
I think the press has a duty to inform the public. I think that it's a siren's call that — for the forensic pathologist because it can only lead to trouble for the forensic pathologist.