Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1) — Thursday, February 23, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\23\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-TOM-LANGE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 24 of 167

◀ Motion: crime scene video admissibility Sidebar: Sydney Simpson statement ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, February 23, 1995 • Utterances: 70

Johnnie Cochran resumes cross-examination of Det. Tom Lange, first establishing the mechanics of rape kit evidence collection at the coroner's office, then pivoting to challenge the thoroughness of the investigation by getting Lange to concede what he didn't know upon arriving at Bundy. Cochran plants a hypothetical about a possible visitor to Nicole's residence as late as 10:30 PM before the session ends abruptly with an unresolved objection over questions about the Simpson children and a West LA officer.

# 1 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WOULD YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. TOM LANGE, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

# 2 THE COURT:

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

# 3 THE JURY:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 4 THE COURT:

FIRST MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED TODAY. OFTENTIMES, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU, THERE ARE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE THAT THE COURT HAS NO CONTROL OVER, AND THINGS HAPPENED THIS MORNING THAT WE WERE JUST NOT ABLE TO GET STARTED WHEN WE HAD HOPED TO GET STARTED. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE INACTIVITY AND DOWN TIME. I REALIZE THAT YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER BE HERE PARTICIPATING WITH US THAN BEING COOPED UP IN THOSE LITTLE ROOMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE THERE, AND BELIEVE ME, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WEIGHS HEAVIEST ON MY MIND IS KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND WE TRIED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND RUNNING AS FAST AS WE COULD THIS MORNING. AND WITH THAT SAID, DETECTIVE LANGE, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

# 5 DET. TOM LANGE:

GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE.

# 6 THE COURT:

YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

# 7 MR. COCHRAN:

GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

# 8 THE JURY:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

# 9 MR. COCHRAN:

DETECTIVE LANGE.

# 10

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

# 11

BY MR. COCHRAN:

# 12 Q:

WHEN WE CONCLUDED OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION YESTERDAY I HAD ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS -- WHAT IS CALLED A RAPE KIT. A RAPE KIT IS BASICALLY THE ABILITY OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO OBTAIN TRACE EVIDENCE GENERALLY IN THE PUBIC AREA OF A MALE OR FEMALE, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 13 A:

YES.

# 14 Q:

SO NO ONE HAS TO BE RAPED IN ORDER TO TAKE A SWAB OF THE GENITAL AREA OF MALE OR FEMALES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 15 A:

I BELIEVE THEY LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT PRIOR TO THAT BEING DONE.

# 16 Q:

ALL RIGHT. THEY MAY VERY WELL DO THAT, BUT THEY CAN TAKE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR RAPE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 17 A:

I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THAT. THERE IS USUALLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH THINGS BEFORE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 Q:

WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, IN ORDER TO COLLECT TRACE EVIDENCE, ONE COULD CHECK THE PUBIC HAIRS OF A PARTICULAR DECEDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 19 A:

IF ONE WERE LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

# 20 Q:

YES. AND ONE COULD CHECK THE CERVIX AREA OF A FEMALE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 21 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 22 Q:

AND I THINK YOU INDICATED TO US THEY DO THIS BY USING SOME KIND OF A SWAB; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 23 A:

THAT'S CORRECT, AS WELL AS VISUAL EXAMINATION.

# 24 Q:

ALL RIGHT. THEN THEY CAN MAKE SOME KIND OF TRACE ANALYSIS, THE CORONER'S CRIMINALIST CAN DO THIS AFTER -- AFTER THE DECEDENT -- AFTER THESE SWABS ARE TAKEN FROM THE DECEDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 25 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 26 Q:

NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, AT THE -- WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY THERE AT 4:25, YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE EXCEPT YOU HAD TWO DEAD BODIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 27 A:

NO. I WAS INFORMED THAT ONE OF THE VICTIM'S --

# 28 Q:

WHEN -- I'M TALKING WHEN YOU FIRST -- SO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE, WHAT DID YOU KNOW?

# 29 A:

THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THE EX-WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON.

KEY QUOTE

# 30 Q:

ALL RIGHT. BUT DID YOU KNOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT?

# 31 A:

JUST THAT THERE WAS A MALE VICTIM AND A FEMALE VICTIM.

# 32 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE TIME OF DEATH, DID YOU?

# 33 A:

NO.

# 34 Q:

YOU DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME INITIALLY HOW THE PEOPLE, HOW THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAD MET THEIR DEATH, DID YOU?

# 35 A:

NO.

# 36 Q:

AND AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AS AN INVESTIGATOR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH YOUR HOMICIDE MANUAL THAT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATION IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY PARAMOUNT? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

# 37 A:

I AGREE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

# 38 Q:

SPECIFICALLY THE THINGS YOU DO AT THE VERY BEGINNING; ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 39 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 40 Q:

AND YOUR NOTE TAKING IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD; IS IT NOT?

# 41 A:

YES.

# 42 Q:

AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IN SEEKING TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A DOUBLE HOMICIDE THE ISSUE OF THE TIME OF DEATH MAY BECOME VERY RELEVANT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

# 43 A:

IT COULD, YES.

# 44 Q:

AND, SIR, WITH REGARD TO A PARTICULAR DECEDENT, EITHER DECEDENT IN THIS CASE, WOULDN'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO DETERMINE THE LAST INDIVIDUAL THAT EITHER ONE OF THESE DECEDENTS CAME IN CONTACT WITH?

# 45 A:

THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

# 46 Q:

IF -- LET'S ASSUME THAT IN THE CASE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, SHE HAD A VISITOR AT HER RESIDENCE AS LATE AS 10:30 P.M. WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOU TO KNOW THAT?

KEY QUOTE

# 47 A:

I HAD NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

# 48 Q:

I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT.

# 49 A:

IF IN FACT THAT WERE THE CASE, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO SPEAK WITH THAT PERSON, YES.

# 50 Q:

THE QUESTION IS IF SHE HAD HAD A VISITOR AS LATE AS 10:30 P.M. ON JUNE 12, 1994, THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT, WOULD IT NOT?

# 51 A:

I WOULD THINK SO.

# 52 Q:

IN FACT, YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHOM SHE TALKED TO ON THE PHONE THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, WOULDN'T YOU?

# 53 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 54 Q:

AND IF YOU HAD EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD HAD A VISITOR THAT EVENING, AS YOU SAID, YOU WOULD WANT TO TALK TO THAT PERSON, WOULDN'T YOU?

# 55 A:

I WOULD.

# 56 Q:

NOW, THE TWO SIMPSON CHILDREN WERE TAKEN DOWN TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 57 A:

THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD, YES.

# 58 Q:

AND AT SOME POINT YOU ARE AWARE THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE LOOKING AFTER THESE CHILDREN --

# 59 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

# 60 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I FINISH THE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR?

# 61 MS. CLARK:

OBJECT. MAY WE APPROACH?

# 62 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I FINISH THE STATEMENT?

# 63 MS. CLARK:

MAY I CONFER WITH COUNSEL?

# 64 MR. COCHRAN:

SURE.

# 65 THE COURT:

WHY DON'T YOU COUNSEL WITH COUNSEL.

# 66 MS. CLARK:

IN LIEU OF A SIDE BAR.

# 67 THE COURT:

THANK YOU.

# 68 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

# 69 MS. CLARK:

THERE IS A RELEVANCE OBJECTION I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE.

# 70 THE COURT:

LET ME SEE COUNSEL.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Johnnie Cochran

IF -- LET'S ASSUME THAT IN THE CASE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, SHE HAD A VISITOR AT HER RESIDENCE AS LATE AS 10:30 P.M. WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOU TO KNOW THAT?

Cochran plants a defense theory — that an unknown visitor may have been at Bundy near the time of the murders — without needing to prove it yet, just getting Lange to agree it would matter.

Tom Lange

THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THE EX-WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON.

Lange reveals that Simpson's connection to the case was known before he even arrived at the scene, suggesting the investigation may have been framed around OJ from the start.

Tom Lange

I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THAT. THERE IS USUALLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH THINGS BEFORE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

Lange resists Cochran's framing on rape kit collection, showing he is not a passive witness — he pushes back on hypotheticals that don't match his experience.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Rape kit — swabs and visual examination of genital/pubic area of decedents for trace evidence

discussed conceptually to establish what evidence the coroner's office could have collected

Informal

Simpson children taken to West LA police station after murders

referenced; line of questioning cut off by objection before developed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran walks Lange through a series of concessions — Lange didn't know time of death, manner of death, or whether Nicole had visitors that night — methodically building a picture of an investigation that locked onto OJ without fully exploring other leads.

strategic

Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Clark objects before Cochran finishes a question about an officer with the Simpson children, requests a sidebar in lieu of on-the-record argument. The session ends with the sidebar unresolved.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Tom Lange

omission / investigation bias

Cochran establishes that Lange knew Nicole was OJ's ex-wife before arriving at the scene, then gets him to concede he didn't know time of death, manner of death, or whether Nicole had a visitor at 10:30 PM — implying the investigation was shaped around OJ rather than following evidence neutrally.

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 4922 • 70 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103