Cross-examination of Ronald Phillips (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Ronald Phillips (part 3) — Friday, February 17, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\17\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-RONALD-PH.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 21 of 167

◀ Court back on record Redirect examination of Ronald Phillips (part 1) ▶

Witness: Det. Ronald Phillips
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, February 17, 1995 • Lines: 61

Cochran concludes his cross-examination of Detective Ronald Phillips, covering two main areas: whether knowledge of Fuhrman's prior contact with Nicole Simpson in connection with a 1985 call at the Simpson residence magnified Phillips' disappointment at being removed from the case, and procedural questions about evidence handling, crime scene integrity, and whether Phillips was present when the coroner arrived and liver temperatures were taken. Phillips deflected the Fuhrman-connection question and gave measured, hedged answers on evidence procedure.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

# 2 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE RONALD PHILLIPS IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, THIS VERY MORNING.

# 4 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DEPUTY PHILLIPS, A FEW MORE QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. YOU HAD MENTIONED IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS THAT THERE WAS SOME MEASURE OF DISAPPOINTMENT WHEN YOU WERE TAKEN OFF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU HAD GOTTEN UP AMONG OTHER THINGS. WOULD THAT DISAPPOINTMENT HAVE BEEN MAGNIFIED IN ANY WAY BECAUSE THE MAN WHO WORKED FOR YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HAD KNOWN AT LEAST ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THAT?

# 5 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE.

# 6 THE COURT:

WELL, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 7 MR. COCHRAN:

HAD INVESTIGATED -- THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY -- WELL, LET ME RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR --

# 8 THE COURT:

ASK HIM IF HE IS AWARE OF THAT FIRST.

# 9 MR. COCHRAN:

I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT, YOUR HONOR.

# 10 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT, I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE MAGNIFIED BY THE FACT THAT AT SOME POINT YOU LEARNED THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD INVESTIGATED A CALL AT LEAST IN 1985 INVOLVING NICOLE.

# 11 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. THIS IS GOING TO BE A HEARSAY OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID TO THIS WITNESS' SENSE OF DISAPPOINTMENT OR NOT?

# 12 THE COURT:

IT'S SUSTAINED AT THIS POINT ON FOUNDATIONAL GROUNDS.

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT.

# 14 THE COURT:

YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH IF THAT WAS IN HIS MIND AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS TOLD.

# 15 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: AT SOME POINT, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD RESPONDED TO A CALL BACK IN 1985 AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 16 A:

AFTER THIS CASE, YES, I WAS AWARE OF THAT.

# 17 Q:

AND AT ANY TIME, WAS YOUR LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT IN HAVING TO TURN THE CASE OVER TO ROBBERY-HOMICIDE AT ALL MAGNIFIED BY ANY CONTACT THAT ANY OF THE OFFICERS HAD HAD WITH THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE BEFORE THAT? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

# 18 A:

THE DISAPPOINTMENT IN NOT HANDLING THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME DISAPPOINTMENT NO MATTER WHAT THE CASE WAS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE AT ALL. WE HAD JUST GOTTEN UP, WE HAD GONE OUT TO A CRIME SCENE. IT WAS OUR CASE TO INVESTIGATE. IT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM US. THERE WAS DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE. IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHOSE CASE OR WHAT CASE THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM US.

KEY QUOTE

# 19 Q:

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. NOW, I MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE IF I DID. WITH REGARD TO THE CRIME SCENE BEING -- WAS IT -- WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN IT WAS WASHED DOWN OR CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THIS SCENE WAS WASHED DOWN?

# 20 A:

I WAS NOT PRESENT, SIR.

# 21 Q:

DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS WASHED DOWN?

# 22 A:

NO, I DON'T.

# 23 Q:

WHEN YOU CAME BACK LATER THAT DAY ON JUNE 13TH, HAD THE BLOOD BEEN WASHED DOWN AT THAT POINT?

# 24 A:

I NEVER WENT BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION. I WAS NOT AT THE BUNDY LOCATION WHEN THE SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN. I WAS AT MY OFFICE AND I NEVER WENT BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION THAT DAY.

KEY QUOTE

# 25 Q:

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE YOU SEEN ANY RECORDS OF THE SHOE SIZES OF THE OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN AT THE BUNDY SCENE? WAS THERE A RECORD KEPT OF THE OFFICERS' SHOE SIZES?

# 26 A:

NO, SIR.

# 27 Q:

OF COURSE, PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THESE PROCEEDINGS ON TELEVISION, HAVE YOU?

# 28 A:

NO, SIR.

# 29 Q:

DID YOU EVER PARTICIPATE IN GOING BACK OVER TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER ROKAHR AT ALL THAT MORNING?

# 30 A:

NO, SIR.

# 31 Q:

WOULD IT BE FAIR THAT THE LAST TIME YOU SAW HIM THAT DAY ON JUNE 13TH WAS WHEN HE WAS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

# 32 A:

I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM ANYMORE AFTER THAT.

# 33 Q:

NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE MOVEMENT OF EVIDENCE, WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR ACCIDENTAL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU TRY NOT TO HAVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 34 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 35 Q:

AND IF EVIDENCE IS EITHER MOVED ACCIDENTALLY OR ANY OTHER WAYS, YOU WOULD TEND TO WRITE A REPORT AND EXPLAIN THAT, IS THAT CORRECT, IN A CASE YOU WERE HANDLING?

# 36 A:

IT WOULD DEPEND.

# 37 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

# 38 MR. COCHRAN:

IT'S IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR?

# 39 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 40 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER THAT.

# 41 A:

IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT EVIDENCE WAS MOVED OR WHY IT WAS MOVED OR WHO WAS MOVED. THERE COULD BE A WHOLE LITANY OF THINGS THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED THAT MIGHT HAVE WANTED YOU TO MAKE A REPORT.

# 42 Q:

BUT IF YOU WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY EVIDENCE WAS MOVED, THE BEST RECORD WOULD BE TO WRITE A REPORT AS TO WHAT HAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 43 A:

IF YOU THOUGHT THE REPORT WAS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU HAD DONE, YES.

# 44 Q:

THE PERFECT SCENE, THE PERFECT CRIME SCENE, YOU WANT EVIDENCE TO REMAIN JUST AS IT WAS WHEN YOU FOUND IT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 45 A:

THAT'S THE IDEAL WAY, YES.

# 46 Q:

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN, PICTURES ARE TAKEN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY OR SOON THEREAFTER, BECAUSE EVIDENCE WILL TEND TO DISSIPATE OVER TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 47 A:

YOU ALWAYS TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE AND AFTER.

# 48 Q:

AND ONE OF THE REASONS, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU WANT TO GET THE CORONER OUT THERE IS THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT TAKE PLACE IN BODIES OVER TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 49 A:

WELL, A BODY WILL BEGIN TO CHANGE, YES.

# 50 Q:

YES. IN OTHER WORDS, RIGOR MORTIS MAY SET IN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 51 A:

THAT'S TRUE.

# 52 Q:

AND YOU HAVE BEEN AT CRIME SCENES, HAVE YOU NOT, WHEN THE CORONER HAS ARRIVED AND TAKEN A LIVER TEMPERATURE OF A PARTICULAR BODY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 53 A:

I'VE BEEN THERE WHEN THE CORONER HAS TAKEN LIVER TEMPERATURES, YES.

# 54 Q:

AND THE LIVER TEMPERATURE IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE CORONER CAN EXTRAPOLATE OR TRY AND ASCERTAIN THE TIME OF DEATH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 55 A:

ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS, YES.

# 56 Q:

YOU'RE AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 57 A:

IT'S A FACTOR THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, YES.

# 58 Q:

WERE YOU AT THAT SCENE WHEN HE -- WHEN THE CORONER FINALLY ARRIVED AND WHEN LIVER TEMPERATURES WERE TAKEN IN THIS CASE?

# 59 A:

NO, I WAS NOT.

# 60 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

# 61 DET. RONALD PHILLIPS:

THANK YOU, SIR.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Ronald Phillips

THE DISAPPOINTMENT IN NOT HANDLING THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME DISAPPOINTMENT NO MATTER WHAT THE CASE WAS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE AT ALL.

Phillips denied that prior contact between officers and parties in the case affected his disappointment at having to turn the case over.

Ronald Phillips

I NEVER WENT BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION. I WAS NOT AT THE BUNDY LOCATION WHEN THE SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN.

Establishes that Phillips was absent and did not know when any washdown occurred, limiting his usefulness as a witness on scene preservation.

Ronald Phillips

NO, SIR.

Phillips answered negatively when asked about his knowledge of records of the officers' shoe sizes.

Ronald Phillips

NO, I WAS NOT.

Phillips confirmed that he was not present when the coroner arrived and liver temperatures were taken, limiting his firsthand knowledge of that procedure.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Fuhrman's response to a 1985 call at the Simpson residence involving Nicole

referenced to probe Phillips' awareness and whether it influenced his reaction to the case handoff

Informal

Liver temperature reading by coroner at Bundy scene

discussed; Phillips confirmed he was not present when it was taken

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Ronald Phillips

Cochran attempts to connect Fuhrman's prior contact involving Nicole with Phillips's disappointment about turning the case over. Phillips denies that prior officer contact with the parties magnified his disappointment.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Ronald Phillips

Cochran walks Phillips through ideal crime scene protocol — photographs, coroner's liver temp, evidence documentation — before confirming Phillips was absent for the coroner's arrival, building the theme of a compromised investigation.

methodical

Johnnie Cochran•Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark's objection on the Fuhrman-1985-call question is sustained on foundational grounds; Ito coaches Cochran to establish what was in Phillips' mind at the time rather than asking the compound question directly.

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Johnnie Cochran

Cochran says 'I WILL BE DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, THIS VERY MORNING' in response to being told he may conclude — a mild bit of self-aware courtroom theater.

Ronald Phillips

Phillips responds 'THANK YOU, SIR' to Cochran's closing 'THANK YOU VERY KINDLY' — an unusually cordial sign-off between cross-examiner and witness.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ LAPD investigation

omission / failure to document

Cochran elicited that Phillips was not present for and did not know the timing of any washdown, answered "NO, SIR" when asked whether officers' shoe sizes were recorded, and was absent when liver temperatures were taken — questions directed at the completeness of the investigation.

⚔ Ronald Phillips

possible bias or personal interest

Cochran tested whether Phillips's knowledge of Fuhrman's prior contact involving Nicole affected his disappointment at having to turn the case over; Phillips denied that any prior officer contact with the parties magnified his disappointment.

Objections

4 objections (2 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 4885 • 61 lines • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103