Cross-examination of Larry Ragle (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Larry Ragle (part 1) — Monday, August 21, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\AUG\21\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-LARRY-RAG.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 139 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Larry Ragle (part 5) Jury recalled into courtroom ▶

Witness: Larry Ragle
Examiner: Hank Goldberg
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, August 21, 1995 • Utterances: 213

Prosecutor Hank Goldberg cross-examined defense criminalist expert Larry Ragle, methodically dismantling his qualifications by establishing that Ragle had not investigated a single crime scene — homicide, rape, or otherwise — since at least 1976, either as primary or secondary criminalist. Goldberg also attacked Ragle's examination of the Bronco by establishing he viewed it without the driver's door in place, undermining his opinions about what could or could not be seen from the exterior.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Goldberg.

# 2 MR. GOLDBERG:

Maybe we just could keep that up for a second just so we don't have to waste time.

# 3 THE COURT:

Sure. Good place to start.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

# 4 MR. GOLDBERG:

Mr. Ragle--

# 5 MR. GOLDBERG:

May I start, your Honor? Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

# 6 MR. GOLDBERG:

Mr. Ragle, if you look in the upper left-hand corner of this, can you see the initials "DF" for Dennis Fung?

# 7 MR. GOLDBERG:

There's a little bit of a glare. Maybe we can move it--move it over a little bit.

# 8 MR. RAGLE:

I see those initials, yes.

# 9 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And was it your understanding of the testimony that this particular photograph was testified to by Dennis Fung, not by Mark Fuhrman?

# 10 MR. RAGLE:

This photograph?

# 11 MR. GOLDBERG:

Yes.

# 12 MR. RAGLE:

As far as these markings, yes.

# 13 MR. GOLDBERG:

Yes. And was it your understanding of the testimony that Mark Fuhrman's testimony was that he saw bloodstains on the lower portion of the driver's door as opposed to the sill?

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, objection. His objection was sustained on--

# 15 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 16 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, when was it that you last saw the Bronco in this case, sir?

# 17 MR. RAGLE:

March 14th I believe of 1995.

# 18 MR. GOLDBERG:

And is that when you made the examination that was the subject of the most recent line of inquiry by the Defense regarding the Bronco?

# 19 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 20 MR. GOLDBERG:

Had you seen it since then?

# 21 MR. RAGLE:

No. No. I had seen it before also, but that--in terms of looking specifically for the shape of this area of the door and the--what would be the enclosed area of the door shut, that's correct. The door was not on it at the time that I looked at it, but the other side door was.

# 22 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. So at the time that you looked at the side that's depicted in this particular photograph, is it correct to say that the door had already been removed?

# 23 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 24 MR. GOLDBERG:

And so you're forming your opinion as to what could or could not be seen based upon your examination on the 14th of March without the benefit of having the driver's door in place; is that correct?

# 25 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 26 MR. GOLDBERG:

And I don't know if this is beyond the scope of your expertise. Please let us know. But is it your understanding from owning cars and observing cars and being a criminalist presumably doing investigations involving cars, that sometimes the alignment is different on one door as opposed to the other?

# 27 MR. RAGLE:

That is indeed possible.

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, Mr. Ragle, you've been critical of some of the procedures that have been used in this case to do the crime scene investigation; is that correct?

# 29 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I am critical.

# 30 MR. GOLDBERG:

We can take the photograph down. Okay. Thank you.

# 31 MR. GOLDBERG:

And with respect to the Bronco, if blood had been observed on the lower portion of the driver's door of the Bronco and someone had thought that that was significant from a forensic science standpoint, if you had been out on the crime--at the crime scene as a criminalist, would you have wanted to remove that evidence at the scene as opposed to removing it at some later point?

# 32 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 33 MR. GOLDBERG:

And what would the reason for that be?

# 34 MR. RAGLE:

Because of the fact that you have to transport a car, under those circumstances, and unless you have an enclosed carrier, something could happen to that sample.

# 35 MR. GOLDBERG:

In other words, just very simply, in the 14- or 15-mile drive or however long it is back to the print shed from the scene at Rockingham, there would be a great likelihood of perhaps that evidence towards the bottom of the door becoming washed off or somehow obliterated; is that correct?

# 36 MR. RAGLE:

Could be very possible if it's--you know, they drive through water or something like that.

# 37 MR. GOLDBERG:

And we'd be very concerned that we might not be able to find that later on; is that correct?

# 38 MR. RAGLE:

That's a possibility.

# 39 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, sir, based upon your extensive experience as a criminalist and also training police officers, is it your understanding that police officers have often submitted items for analysis at the laboratory that they believe to be blood that turned out not to be blood?

# 40 MR. RAGLE:

Yes. Or not to be human blood or something like that.

# 41 MR. GOLDBERG:

And would you agree that when you're looking at a tiny little dot of a reddish brownish spot for the police officer who is not trained in criminalistics, it may be difficult to tell for sure whether you're really looking at something that's blood as opposed to something that's just a little dot of mud or some other material; is that correct?

# 42 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 43 MR. GOLDBERG:

So would you be surprised if a police officer were to look at a Bronco door and perhaps mistake something for blood that was not blood?

# 44 MR. RAGLE:

That could happen.

# 45 MR. GOLDBERG:

And it was your opinion that at least one of the dots of blood that we saw in the photograph that was just shown to the jury probably would have been or would have been visible from the exterior of the Bronco with the door closed; is that correct?

# 46 MR. RAGLE:

Well, I have no knowledge that that dot was blood. But whatever that is is low enough that it would be visible.

# 47 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, I'd like to get into a little bit of your qualifications and your experience. Sir, did I understand your testimony to indicate that you were actually a police officer at one time?

# 48 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, it was.

# 49 MR. GOLDBERG:

And did you ever achieve the status of detective?

# 50 MR. RAGLE:

Uh, no.

# 51 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Were you--

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Your Honor, I don't think he was finished.

# 53 MR. RAGLE:

I just wanted to qualify that. At the time the city of Berkeley, and I think even today, did not have the position of detective. The-- each patrolman investigated the case that occurred on their beat. The only level of nonuniform investigators was called an inspector and they did not work in the field. They coordinated cases in the department.

# 54 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And did you have occasion to investigate any homicides as a police officer?

# 55 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 56 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. Now, you retired from the Orange County Sheriff's Department in 1989; is that correct?

# 57 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 58 MR. GOLDBERG:

And now you're doing consulting work?

# 59 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 60 MR. GOLDBERG:

And that's primarily in laboratory design?

# 61 MR. RAGLE:

In--and in management and needs assessment actually. That's probably more in line with what we've been doing lately than the laboratory design.

# 62 MR. GOLDBERG:

How many public criminalistics laboratories have consulted you for the purposes of deciding how to redesign or build a laboratory since that time?

# 63 MR. RAGLE:

Actually hired me or consulted me?

# 64 MR. GOLDBERG:

Yes.

# 65 MR. RAGLE:

Hired me, two.

# 66 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, since 1989, how many homicides have you been the primary criminalist who was investigating the crime scene?

KEY QUOTE

# 67 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 68 MR. GOLDBERG:

And how many crime scenes, homicide crime scenes since 1989 were you a secondary criminalist or assistant criminalist investigating that crime scene?

# 69 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 70 MR. GOLDBERG:

How many rape crime scene investigations have you participated in as a criminalist since 1989?

# 71 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 72 MR. GOLDBERG:

Any major crimes or significant crimes since then?

# 73 MR. RAGLE:

Uh, no. None.

# 74 MR. GOLDBERG:

Any minor crimes where you've been the criminalist who was investigating the crime scene since 1989?

# 75 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 76 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. Now, between the years of 1976 and 1989, you were basically in upper management of the crime laboratory, either the director--what was the other position that you mentioned? It had another title.

# 77 MR. RAGLE:

It's the same position, just a different title.

# 78 MR. GOLDBERG:

Right. Now, during that period of time, between 1976 and 1989, can you give us the estimation as to the number of homicides where you were the primary criminalist investigating the crime scene?

# 79 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 80 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, how many were you assisting investigating the crime scene during that period of time?

# 81 MR. RAGLE:

Exact same number. None.

KEY QUOTE

# 82 MR. GOLDBERG:

What about rape cases? How many rape cases were there during that time frame where you were investigating crimes?

# 83 MR. RAGLE:

Still talking about 1977 to 1989?

# 84 MR. GOLDBERG:

Right. Yes.

# 85 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 86 MR. GOLDBERG:

Major crimes?

# 87 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 88 MR. GOLDBERG:

Minor crimes?

# 89 MR. RAGLE:

None.

# 90 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, you mentioned to us that you had written a book--not--excuse me. Not a book. You had written a chapter in a book regarding crime scene investigation; is that correct?

# 91 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 92 MR. GOLDBERG:

And what was the title of the book again?

# 93 MR. RAGLE:

Principles of investigation I believe.

# 94 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, sir, there are some leading forensic textbooks that cover the subject of crime scene investigation; is that correct?

# 95 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 96 MR. GOLDBERG:

And some of those are Richard Safferstein's book called criminalistics. You're familiar with this?

# 97 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 98 MR. GOLDBERG:

And you've relied on this in forming your opinions about crime scene investigation; is that correct?

# 99 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 100 MR. GOLDBERG:

You haven't?

# 101 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 102 MR. GOLDBERG:

Is there some reason for that?

# 103 MR. RAGLE:

I don't have it.

# 104 MR. GOLDBERG:

Oh, you haven't read what Mr. Safferstein has to say about crime scene investigation?

# 105 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 106 MR. GOLDBERG:

Isn't he one of the leading authorities?

# 107 MR. RAGLE:

I don't know.

# 108 MR. GOLDBERG:

But you've heard of him, sir.

# 109 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I do. I heard of him.

# 110 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And you're familiar with the book entitled forensic science and introduction to criminalistics by Peter de Forest, Dr. Gaennslen and Lee; is that correct?

# 111 MR. RAGLE:

I read part of that.

# 112 MR. GOLDBERG:

And this is considered to be a leading forensic textbook; is that correct?

# 113 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, it is.

# 114 MR. GOLDBERG:

And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation?

# 115 MR. RAGLE:

Portions of it.

# 116 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. We'll get into that a little more later. And you've heard of a book forensic science handbook by Richard Safferstein; is that correct?

# 117 MR. RAGLE:

I've heard of it.

# 118 MR. GOLDBERG:

And this is a leading textbook that's probably on the shelf of every criminalist maybe in the country; is that correct?

# 119 MR. RAGLE:

It's in our library.

# 120 MR. GOLDBERG:

And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation?

# 121 MR. RAGLE:

No, I haven't.

# 122 MR. GOLDBERG:

You haven't?

# 123 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 124 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, isn't this one of the leading books discussing forensic evidence?

# 125 MR. RAGLE:

I don't know.

# 126 MR. GOLDBERG:

Why don't you know?

# 127 MR. RAGLE:

Because I haven't read it.

# 128 MR. GOLDBERG:

You haven't read any of it?

# 129 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 130 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, have you read Richard Safferstein's other book entitled forensic science handbook, volume iii?

# 131 MR. RAGLE:

No, I haven't. I have read some of that if that's got a chapter in it by George Sensabaugh.

# 132 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, Mr. Sensabaugh has a chapter in Richard Safferstein's earlier book. Could this be what you're thinking of?

# 133 MR. RAGLE:

If it's talking about the polymarker likelihood in enzyme typing, yes.

# 134 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. An earlier book dealing with conventional serology; is that correct?

# 135 MR. RAGLE:

Yes. Yes.

# 136 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. Well, we'll get to that a little bit later. Then the Richard Safferstein forensic science handbook, volume iii, you don't think you've read this; is that correct?

# 137 MR. RAGLE:

If it's not the one that has Dr. Sensabaugh's article, that's correct.

# 138 MR. GOLDBERG:

But isn't this also a text that would probably be found on the shelf of most criminalists around the country?

# 139 MR. BLASIER:

Objection. No foundation.

# 140 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 141 MR. RAGLE:

I'm sure it may be.

# 142 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, you've talked a little bit about footwear impression evidence in this case; is that correct?

# 143 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 144 MR. GOLDBERG:

And you know Bill Bodziak of the FBI?

# 145 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I do.

# 146 MR. GOLDBERG:

Are you familiar with his book called footwear impression evidence?

# 147 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I am.

# 148 MR. GOLDBERG:

And have you read at least the portions of this book dealing with crime scene investigation as it relates to footwear?

# 149 MR. RAGLE:

I've read portions of it. I don't know what section you're specifically referring to.

# 150 MR. GOLDBERG:

You don't think that you've read the whole--

# 151 MR. RAGLE:

I haven't read the whole book.

# 152 MR. GOLDBERG:

Have you read entire chapters dealing with crime scene investigation?

# 153 MR. RAGLE:

No.

# 154 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. And isn't this also a leading book that would probably be a reference that would be consulted by any criminalist who is routinely doing footwear examinations?

# 155 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 156 MR. GOLDBERG:

They would probably have it on their shelf--

# 157 MR. RAGLE:

I've sure they do.

# 158 MR. GOLDBERG:

--as a reference?

# 159 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Goldberg, about five minutes.

# 160 MR. GOLDBERG:

What?

# 161 THE COURT:

About five minutes.

# 162 MR. GOLDBERG:

And are you familiar with Barry Fisher of the crime laboratory here in our County of Los Angeles?

# 163 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I am.

# 164 MR. GOLDBERG:

And you're familiar with his book, techniques of crime scene investigation?

# 165 MR. RAGLE:

Yes, I am.

# 166 MR. GOLDBERG:

And have you read this book?

# 167 MR. RAGLE:

Portions of it.

# 168 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And have you relied on portions of this book in forming opinions about crime scene investigation, Barry Fisher's book?

# 169 MR. RAGLE:

I've considered it, yes.

# 170 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, you testified about certain techniques like the--I want to be sure that I understand the terminology you used. You talked about a technique that could be used to take dust prints off a substrate; is that correct?

# 171 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 172 MR. GOLDBERG:

And what did you refer to that as?

# 173 MR. RAGLE:

It's in here. It's a static electrical device that lifts prints.

# 174 MR. GOLDBERG:

Oh, the electrostatic dust print lifter?

# 175 MR. RAGLE:

Yes.

# 176 MR. GOLDBERG:

And is it true at the time that you were processing crime scenes, that device hadn't even been invented yet?

# 177 MR. RAGLE:

When I was investigating crime scenes, yes, but not while I was a director of the lab.

# 178 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Your Honor, did you want to stop at this point you said?

# 179 THE COURT:

No. Just finish out the half hour here.

# 180 MR. GOLDBERG:

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the Court said you wanted to stop at 2:30.

# 181 THE COURT:

No. I did, but we go by that clock.

# 182 MR. GOLDBERG:

Oh, okay. All right.

# 183 THE COURT:

All right.

# 184 MR. GOLDBERG:

Now, you also talked about this course that you've taught at Cal State Long Beach; is that correct, sir?

# 185 MR. RAGLE:

Through Cal State Long Beach.

# 186 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. And is this an upper division course for criminalists who are getting a masters or Ph.D.?

# 187 MR. RAGLE:

I don't believe Cal State offers any such course.

# 188 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Is this a course that is primarily geared for criminalists or one that is primarily geared for police officers and a category of people that we've referred to as crime scene technicians?

# 189 MR. RAGLE:

The course I referred to is the latter. I also taught a course that trained criminalists.

# 190 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Well, I was talking about the course that you were referring to during the direct examination here.

# 191 MR. RAGLE:

I'm still doing that. The course that I taught at Cal State Long Beach for criminalists, I no longer teach.

# 192 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. But the course that you were referring to on direct examination would then be a course that is primarily geared for what we would or what you would use as a criminalist, what you would describe as a layperson?

# 193 MR. RAGLE:

No. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question. Maybe you should--

# 194 MR. GOLDBERG:

Is the course geared for what you would describe as a criminalist as being lay people, in other words, noncriminalists?

# 195 MR. RAGLE:

No. No. I would--I would describe them as police investigators or crime scene investigators.

# 196 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well--

# 197 MR. RAGLE:

Now, some of them are untrained when they come to the class, if that's what you mean by lay people.

# 198 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. But do you consider a crime scene technician to be a layperson in reference to a criminalist who is considered to be a professional in the area of forensic science?

# 199 MR. RAGLE:

No. I think many of the field evidence technicians and id people are professionals. Depends on their time and their training and their experience.

# 200 MR. GOLDBERG:

But whatever they are, you would not consider them to be forensic scientists; is that correct?

# 201 MR. RAGLE:

I consider them forensic scientists. I don't consider them criminalists.

# 202 MR. GOLDBERG:

You consider police officers to be forensic scientists?

# 203 MR. RAGLE:

I consider a person who applies scientific techniques at a crime scene such as fingerprint dusting, collection of--searching crime scene with analytical instruments such as the devices you're talking about or lasers or other techniques to be scientists.

# 204 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, at any rate, police officers are not criminalists; is that correct?

# 205 MR. RAGLE:

Some police officers are also criminalists.

# 206 MR. GOLDBERG:

Well, very, very few, right?

# 207 MR. RAGLE:

Now days, very, very few.

# 208 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And evidence technicians are not criminalists; is that correct?

# 209 MR. RAGLE:

That's correct.

# 210 MR. GOLDBERG:

Can you give us--maybe if you can give us a minute-long definition of what an evidence technician is.

# 211 MR. RAGLE:

Field evidence technician is an individual that is trained in documentation of a crime scene, of recognizing and searching for some of the evidence and collecting it.

# 212 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. I'll pick up after the break. Thank you.

# 213 THE COURT:

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a brief mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. Come back in 15 minutes. We'll stand in recess for 15.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Larry Ragle

None.

Repeated answer across a series of questions about homicides, rapes, and any crime scenes investigated as a criminalist — both from 1976-1989 and from 1989 onward. The cumulative effect was devastating to his credibility as a crime scene expert.

Hank Goldberg

Now, since 1989, how many homicides have you been the primary criminalist who was investigating the crime scene?

Opens a systematic line of questioning exposing Ragle's total absence of hands-on crime scene work for over 35 years at time of trial.

Larry Ragle

That's correct. The door was not on it at the time that I looked at it, but the other side door was.

Admission that his opinion about the Bronco driver's door visibility was formed without the driver's door actually present, undermining his testimony about what could or could not be seen.

Larry Ragle

I don't have it.

Ragle's explanation for why he hadn't relied on Safferstein's leading criminalistics textbook — he simply didn't own it. Part of a pattern showing unfamiliarity with standard reference works in his claimed area of expertise.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Photograph of the Bronco driver's door area bearing initials 'DF' for Dennis Fung

Displayed to jury; used to establish that Fung, not Fuhrman, testified to the photograph, and that Ragle examined the Bronco without the driver's door in place

Informal

The Bronco itself, last examined by Ragle on March 14, 1995

Referenced to establish limitations of Ragle's examination — door had been removed before he inspected that side

Notable Exchanges (3)

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Goldberg walks Ragle through every category of crime scene investigation — homicide primary, homicide secondary, rape, major crimes, minor crimes — for two separate time periods (1976-1989 and 1989-present), receiving 'None' to every question. The repetition was clearly deliberate and effective.

strategic

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Goldberg questioned Ragle about whether he had read the major forensic textbooks — Safferstein's criminalistics, the forensic science handbook, Bodziak's footwear book — revealing Ragle hadn't read or even owned several standard references in his claimed area of expertise.

revealing

Hank Goldberg•Larry Ragle

Goldberg established that Ragle's opinions about the Bronco door visibility were formed on March 14, 1995 without the driver's door attached, and further that door alignment can differ between sides of a vehicle.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Hank Goldberg

Goldberg misheard Judge Ito's warning about time and thought court was stopping at 2:30, prompting a brief exchange about which clock they were using before Goldberg sheepishly continued.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Larry Ragle

Qualification attack — absence of practical experience

Goldberg established through systematic questioning that Ragle had not participated in any crime scene investigation — as primary or secondary criminalist, for any category of crime — since at least 1976. His role from 1976-1989 was purely administrative (lab director), and since retirement in 1989 he has done only consulting on lab design and management.

⚔ Larry Ragle

Qualification attack — unfamiliarity with standard references

Goldberg showed Ragle had not read Safferstein's criminalistics textbook (didn't own it), hadn't read the forensic science handbook volumes, and had only read portions of Bodziak's footwear evidence book — failing to read chapters specifically covering crime scene investigation.

⚔ Larry Ragle

Factual limitation — examination conducted without key evidence in place

Ragle admitted his opinions about the Bronco driver's door and what could be seen from the exterior were formed on March 14, 1995, after the driver's door had already been removed from the vehicle, making his conclusions about visibility speculative.

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 7980 • 213 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103