Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Dr. Fredric Rieders (part 2) — Monday, August 14, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\14\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DR-FREDRI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 135 of 167

◀ Sidebar: Sconce evidence admissibility Sidebar: Sconce case relevance ▶

Witness: Dr. Fredric Rieders
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, August 14, 1995 • Utterances: 74

Marcia Clark cross-examines Dr. Rieders about the Sconce poisoning case, specifically whether he ever reconciled his positive oleandrin findings with Dr. Henion's negative findings. Clark uses a memo by prosecutor Denoce (People's 585) to challenge Rieders' claim that no one asked him to reconcile the results, but Rieders flatly denies the conversation in the memo ever occurred and says he only discussed the discrepancy with his own staff. The examination ends with Rieders conceding that the explanation — that Henion tested older, more decayed tissue — would scientifically reconcile the two results.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court:)

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark, that memo will be marked People's 585.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 4 (Peo's 585 for id = memo)

# 5 MS. CLARK:

Now, Dr. Rieders, is it your testimony that neither Mr. Giss or Mr. Denoce, neither of the Prosecutors, ever asked you to reconcile your positive findings with Mr. Henion's finding?

# 6 DR. RIEDERS:

That's correct. The only one that spoke to me were two people. One was Harvey Giss and the investigator was Simi Valley, Ventura County or L.A., the chief investigator of this case, the police investigator I believe.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

All right.

# 8 DR. RIEDERS:

Those were the only two people who spoke to me, neither of which asked me to reconcile it. Quite to the contrary. If I may, I can tell you what I was told.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

We can go back to that later, doctor. Right now let me--

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

Objection.

# 11 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 12 MS. CLARK:

Dr. Rieders, my question to you is only this: After Dr. Henion's results came out, found no oleandrin--

# 13 DR. RIEDERS:

Right.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

--is it your testimony that no one asked you to reconcile the difference between your finding and his? Is that your testimony?

# 15 DR. RIEDERS:

That is absolutely the correct thing.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

I'm going to show you--you have no memory of that whatsoever?

# 17 DR. RIEDERS:

None whatever that anybody asked me to reconcile.

# 18 MS. CLARK:

Doctor, I would like to show you this memo written by Mr. Denoce and tell me if the representations he makes concerning statements made to you refreshes your memory and is true or false.

# 19 THE COURT:

Miss Clark, that is actually not a question. It is a question does that refresh his recollection. That is the only question; not the content of the memo.

# 20 MS. CLARK:

Does that refresh your recollection, sir?

# 21 THE COURT:

Give him a chance to read it.

# 22 DR. RIEDERS:

May I read it?

# 23 MS. CLARK:

Yes.

# 24 DR. RIEDERS:

Well, I will let you know when I'm done reading it.

# 25 THE COURT:

All right. Let's stop that.

# 26 (Brief pause.)

# 27 DR. RIEDERS:

All right. I'm finished reading it. What is your question?

# 28 MS. CLARK:

Do the passages in which I have just pointed out to you that you can see bracketed here in black, on pages 6 and all of page 7, refresh your memory as to a conversation you had with Mr. Denoce concerning your attempt to reconcile the results between yours and Dr. Henion's?

# 29 DR. RIEDERS:

Not only does it not refresh my memory, but I am reasonably certain that I did not have this conversation with Mr. Denoce.

KEY QUOTE

# 30 MS. CLARK:

Could you have had this conversation then with someone else, Dr. Rieders?

# 31 DR. RIEDERS:

No.

# 32 MS. CLARK:

Then it is your statement here that the statements attributed to you never happened?

# 33 MR. BLASIER:

Objection.

# 34 THE COURT:

Sustained. Without foundation.

# 35 DR. RIEDERS:

My statement--

# 36 THE COURT:

Wait, wait.

# 37 DR. RIEDERS:

I'm sorry.

# 38 THE COURT:

I have sustained the objection. Next question.

# 39 MS. CLARK:

May I have a moment, your Honor?

# 40 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

# 41 MS. CLARK:

Then you offered no explanation to anyone, back in 1991, to attempt to reconcile your results with Dr. Henion's?

# 42 DR. RIEDERS:

I don't know what you mean by I offered no statement to anyone. Of course I talked to people about it and I pointed out that his tests had nothing to do with my tests. He tested pieces of fish-like and rotten meat, like leftovers from a body that had lost more than half of its weight in decomposition taken years later than the specimens that I had tested. And to expect a positive result in a case like this is very much wishful thinking.

# 43 MS. CLARK:

So it is your testimony, sir, then, that you did tell people back in 1991 that Dr. Henion tested only the tissues from the exhumation in 1991 and that is why he got a different result? Is that your testimony?

# 44 DR. RIEDERS:

We both tested tissue--I'm sorry. From 1991? I don't know what else he tested. I don't see anything else in there except maybe the formalin fluid that--I don't know whether he tested that, but he tested tissues that Dr. Lovell had obtained from the decomposed remains of waters. That is what he tested. It is in the report.

# 45 MS. CLARK:

All right. In your opinion then, sir, is it your testimony that back in 1991 you spoke to people and you told them that the reason his negative result occurred is because he tested the older more decayed tissues removed in 1991? Is that your testimony?

# 46 DR. RIEDERS:

I told him what he did and what I did and that expecting to find anything in those tissues was wishful thinking, yes. My staff I talked to about it.

# 47 MS. CLARK:

So your answer is, sir, yes, you told people in 1991 that Dr. Henion tested the tissues recovered from the victim at the exhumation in 1991 and that is why you got different results? Is that your testimony?

# 48 DR. RIEDERS:

That is my recollection, yes.

# 49 MS. CLARK:

And who is it that you told that to in 1991?

# 50 DR. RIEDERS:

My staff.

# 51 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, irrelevant, calls for hearsay.

# 52 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained.

# 53 THE COURT:

Proceed.

# 54 MS. CLARK:

You informed no one on the Prosecution that that was the reason for the negative result that he got?

# 55 DR. RIEDERS:

I didn't talk to anyone on the Prosecution after that, for good reason.

KEY QUOTE

# 56 MS. CLARK:

And what was that good reason, Dr. Rieders?

# 57 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 58 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 59 MS. CLARK:

Did you call Dr. Henion in 1991 to attempt to reconcile those results?

# 60 DR. RIEDERS:

After the analysis, no.

# 61 MS. CLARK:

Now, in reviewing the document, sir, that I showed you, People's 585, nowhere in this document does it indicate an explanation that Dr. Henion--

# 62 MR. BLASIER:

Objection.

# 63 THE COURT:

Sustained, sustained. Foundation.

# 64 MS. CLARK:

Doctor, would you agree that the testing of older tissue that was substantially decayed that gave a negative result for poison would be a scientifically acceptable basis to explain the discrepancy in results?

# 65 DR. RIEDERS:

Would you repeat that, please.

# 66 MS. CLARK:

Yes. Would you agree, doctor, that the explanation that Dr. Henion tested the older more decayed tissue would explain in a scientifically acceptable manner the reason why he got negative results and you got positive results?

# 67 DR. RIEDERS:

Certainly.

# 68 MS. CLARK:

And that explanation would reconcile the difference and remain--and allow your findings to remain valid, wouldn't it?

# 69 DR. RIEDERS:

As valid as they were before.

KEY QUOTE

# 70 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, argumentative, your Honor.

# 71 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 72 DR. RIEDERS:

Yes.

# 73 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, I need to approach.

# 74 THE COURT:

With the court reporter.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. Fredric Rieders

Not only does it not refresh my memory, but I am reasonably certain that I did not have this conversation with Mr. Denoce.

Flat denial of the memo's account — Rieders is calling a prosecutor's written record false, a bold credibility standoff.

Dr. Fredric Rieders

He tested pieces of fish-like and rotten meat, like leftovers from a body that had lost more than half of its weight in decomposition taken years later than the specimens that I had tested.

Rieders offers his scientific explanation for Henion's negative result — decomposed tissue can't show poison — while pointedly noting no one in the prosecution had asked him for it.

Dr. Fredric Rieders

I didn't talk to anyone on the Prosecution after that, for good reason.

A suggestive remark that implies a falling-out with the Sconce prosecutors, but an objection was sustained before any explanation could be given.

Dr. Fredric Rieders

As valid as they were before.

Rieders concedes that the tissue-age explanation fully reconciles the discrepancy — an admission that undercuts the prosecution's framing that the two experts simply disagreed.

Evidence (2)

People's 585

Memo written by prosecutor Denoce documenting alleged conversations with Dr. Rieders about reconciling his oleandrin findings with Dr. Henion's negative results

Marked for identification and used in attempted impeachment; Rieders denied the contents

Informal

Dr. Henion's report showing negative oleandrin findings from 1991 exhumation tissue

Referenced throughout; Rieders distinguished his testing specimens from Henion's

Notable Exchanges (3)

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Judge interrupts Clark mid-question to correct her on the proper use of a refreshing-recollection document: 'Miss Clark, that is actually not a question. It is a question does that refresh his recollection. That is the only question; not the content of the memo.'

procedural correction

Marcia Clark•Dr. Fredric Rieders

Clark repeatedly tries to get Rieders to confirm he told the prosecution his reconciliation theory in 1991; Rieders insists he only told his own staff and had 'good reason' not to speak to the prosecution — a reason the court never allowed him to explain.

strategic / guarded

Marcia Clark•Dr. Fredric Rieders

Clark walks Rieders through a hypothetical reconciliation — would older decayed tissue explain Henion's negative? Rieders agrees it would make his findings 'as valid as they were before,' which Clark elicits as a concession but also inadvertently rehabilitates Rieders' original opinion.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. Fredric Rieders

Prior inconsistent statement via third-party memo

Clark used People's 585, a memo by Sconce prosecutor Denoce, to suggest Rieders did discuss reconciling the Henion discrepancy — contradicting his testimony. Rieders denied the memo's account was accurate, leaving a direct factual conflict between the witness and the document.

⚔ Dr. Fredric Rieders

Omission / failure to communicate

Clark established that Rieders never contacted Henion after his negative results and never informed the Sconce prosecution of his reconciliation theory, suggesting he withheld a key scientific explanation.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause while Rieders reads the memo)

Rieders interrupts himself mid-answer: 'We both tested tissue--I'm sorry.'

Rieders begins to answer before the judge has ruled on objection, then stops: 'My statement-- / I'm sorry.'

Objections

6 objections (4 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 7295 • 74 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103