Sidebar: alcoholism evidence

📄 Sidebar: alcoholism evidence — Thursday, February 2, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\2\SIDEBAR-ALCOHOLISM-EVIDENCE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 11 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Ronald Shipp (morning, part 2) Cross-examination of Ronald Shipp (morning, part 3) ▶

Date: Thursday, February 2, 1995 • Utterances: 27

Defense attorney Carl Douglas sought to impeach a witness's claim that he no longer had an alcohol problem by introducing evidence of drinking incidents in June, July, and August 1994. Darden objected that post-June-13th drinking was irrelevant to the witness's key conversation with Simpson, calling it character assassination. Judge Ito ultimately allowed the August incident and opened the door to questioning Cathy Randa's own drinking, prompting Cochran to complain about tone while Ito instructed Douglas on exactly how to phrase the question.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. ALCOHOLISM IS A MINOR ISSUE AS FAR AS CREDIBILITY IS CONCERNED.

# 3 MR. DOUGLAS:

I HAVE WITNESSES THAT WILL SAY, YOUR HONOR, HE WAS DRINKING ON THE 13TH OF JUNE, HE WAS DRINKING IN JULY, HE WAS DRINKING IN AUGUST. THIS FLIES SQUARELY IN THE FACE OF HIS CLAIM HE NO LONGER HAD AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THAT IS RELEVANT TO WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS, WHETHER OR NOT HE IS MAKING UP ALL THIS ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CONVERSATION. I THINK IT IS VERY RELEVANT AND IT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO MY IMPEACHMENT.

# 4 THE COURT:

MR. DARDEN.

# 5 MR. DARDEN:

IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BEYOND JUNE 13TH. I THINK HE'S BEEN VERY CANDID ABOUT HIS SO-CALLED DRINKING PROBLEM. IT'S IRRELEVANT. THIS IS REALLY CHARACTER ASSASSINATION RIGHT HERE. THAT'S ALL THIS IS. HE'S ADMITTED THAT HE HAD A PROBLEM. HE IS ADMITTING WHEN HE HAD SOMETHING TO DRINK. WE ARE ALL THE WAY INTO AUGUST. THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH DEFENDANT IS OVER. THE MURDERS ALREADY OCCURRED. HOW IS IT RELEVANT? HE ADMITTED THAT HE DRANK THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE MURDERS. I MEAN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? ARE WE GOING TO ASK HIM HAS HE HAD A DRINK ALL THE WAY UP TO TODAY? IT'S IRRELEVANT.

# 6 MR. DOUGLAS:

I THINK HE TESTIFIED FALSELY. I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT. I THINK I SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LEEWAY FOR THIS WITNESS TO ESTABLISH THAT HE'S BEEN FALSE IN ONE RESPECT, SO I CAN ARGUE HE'S BEEN FALSE IN OTHER RESPECTS SO I CAN ARGUE THE REASON HE'S BEING FALSE.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 THE COURT:

HOW MANY OF THESE INCIDENTS DO YOU HAVE?

# 8 MR. DOUGLAS:

I HAVE JUNE, JULY, AUGUST. THOSE ARE ALL, JUST THOSE THREE.

# 9 MR. DARDEN:

DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THIS?

# 10 THE COURT:

WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO THESE THREE ALREADY, HAVEN'T WE?

# 11 MR. DOUGLAS:

YOUR HONOR, HE WANTED TO APPROACH. I WAS MOVING ON.

# 12 THE COURT:

IS THAT THE END OF IT?

# 13 MR. DOUGLAS:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 14 MR. DARDEN:

HE ASKED ABOUT AUGUST. I OBJECTED.

# 15 THE COURT:

TELL ME ABOUT THE AUGUST INCIDENT.

# 16 MR. DOUGLAS:

HE CAME AGAIN AT ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING TO CATHY RANDA'S HOME UNANNOUNCED WITH ALCOHOL ON HIS BREATH AND SHE WAS CONCERNED.

# 17 MR. DARDEN:

WHAT DOES THAT PROVE? WHAT DOES IT PROVE?

# 18 THE COURT:

IT PROVES TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT, "I DON'T HAVE AN ALCOHOL PROBLEM," AND ALCOHOL IS RELEVANT TO PERCEPTION, HIS ABILITY TO PERCEIVE, RECOLLECTION ON THE DATE IN QUESTION ALTHOUGH HE SAYS --

# 19 MR. DARDEN:

CATHY RANDA IS ALSO A DRUNK. ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT?

KEY QUOTE

# 20 THE COURT:

YEAH, PROBABLY.

# 21 MR. DARDEN:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT'S CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

# 23 THE COURT:

JOHNNIE, COME ON.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

WELL, YOUR HONOR, TERMS LIKE "DRUNK", WE DON'T APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S DIFFERENT IN HOW WE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

# 25 THE COURT:

YOU CAN BRIEFLY GO INTO THAT, WASN'T THERE ANOTHER INCIDENT.

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

THIS IS JUST CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF PEOPLE TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

# 27 THE COURT:

MR. DOUGLAS, ALL YOU HAVE TO ASK IS, THERE WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT INVOLVING DRINKING IN 1994 AT CATHY RANDA'S HOUSE, YES OR NO, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Christopher Darden

CATHY RANDA IS ALSO A DRUNK. ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT?

Darden flips the defense's impeachment strategy back on itself, suggesting the corroborating witness has the same credibility problem — and Ito agrees.

Lance A. Ito

YEAH, PROBABLY.

Terse ruling that effectively opens a new line of attack on Cathy Randa's credibility, which immediately satisfied Darden and alarmed Cochran.

Lance A. Ito

MR. DOUGLAS, ALL YOU HAVE TO ASK IS, THERE WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT INVOLVING DRINKING IN 1994 AT CATHY RANDA'S HOUSE, YES OR NO, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Ito dictating the exact question — complete with 'blah, blah, blah' — is unusually hands-on and reveals his impatience with the sidebar.

Johnnie Cochran

WELL, YOUR HONOR, TERMS LIKE 'DRUNK', WE DON'T APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S DIFFERENT IN HOW WE TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

Cochran invokes the defense's rhetorical posture of moral high ground — somewhat ironic given Douglas was just arguing to impeach the same witness on drinking.

Carl Douglas

I THINK HE TESTIFIED FALSELY. I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT. I THINK I SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LEEWAY FOR THIS WITNESS TO ESTABLISH THAT HE'S BEEN FALSE IN ONE RESPECT, SO I CAN ARGUE HE'S BEEN FALSE IN OTHER RESPECTS.

Clear statement of the falsus in uno theory of impeachment — the strategic goal of the entire line of questioning.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Witness drinking incident in June 1994

discussed as impeachment evidence

Informal

Witness drinking incident in July 1994

discussed as impeachment evidence

Informal

Witness arriving at Cathy Randa's home unannounced at 10pm with alcohol on his breath, August 1994

described by Douglas; Ito allows questioning on it

Notable Exchanges (3)

Christopher Darden•Lance A. Ito

Darden provocatively labels Cathy Randa a 'drunk' and asks if that line of attack will be permitted; Ito calmly says 'Yeah, probably,' turning Darden's sarcastic question into a genuine ruling.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran objects to the term 'drunk' as character assassination and invokes taking 'the high road'; Ito tersely responds 'Johnnie, come on' and ignores the objection.

dismissive

Carl Douglas•Christopher Darden

Douglas argues drinking after the murders goes to the witness's general truthfulness about his alcohol problem; Darden counters that the relevant conversation is already over by then.

heated

Light Moments (2)

Lance A. Ito

Ito closes the sidebar by dictating verbatim how to ask the question, ending with 'blah, blah, blah' — impatient but almost comedic in its informality.

Christopher Darden

Darden's rhetorical question 'DO WE REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THIS?' directed at the bench mid-argument, as if appealing to everyone's common sense.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ unidentified witness (referenced conversation with defendant)

prior inconsistent statement / pattern of conduct

Douglas argues the witness falsely claimed to have no alcohol problem; seeks to introduce three post-murder drinking incidents to establish general untruthfulness under falsus in uno.

⚔ Cathy Randa

character / drinking history

Darden opens the door by labeling Randa a 'drunk'; Ito confirms this can be explored, creating reciprocal credibility exposure.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 4530 • 27 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103