Redirect examination of Pablo Fenjves (part 2)

📄 Redirect examination of Pablo Fenjves (part 2) — Tuesday, February 7, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\7\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-PABLO-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 14 of 167

◀ Sidebar: prior statements Recross-examination of Pablo Fenjves (part 1) ▶

Witness: Pablo Fenjves
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, February 7, 1995 • Utterances: 74

Marcia Clark conducts redirect examination of Pablo Fenjves, rehabilitating him after cross-examination raised inconsistencies about whether he went out on his rear porch and when he first heard the dog barking. Clark methodically walks through Fenjves's preliminary hearing testimony to confirm that his core account — hearing an unusual dog bark beginning between 10:15 and 10:20 p.m. on June 12, 1994 — has been consistent throughout.

# 1 THE COURT:

WAIT. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

# 2 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 3 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

IS THE OBJECTION OVERRULED?

# 5 THE COURT:

YES, IT IS.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 7 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND BACK IN JULY, DID YOU INDICATE WHAT THE EXPLANATION WAS FOR THE -- THAT MINOR DISCREPANCY ABOUT THE REAR -- GOING OUT ON THE REAR PORCH?

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT'S CONCLUSIONARY IN FORM.

# 9 THE COURT:

IT IS CONCLUSIONARY. THE DISCREPANCY.

# 10 MS. CLARK:

THE DISCREPANCY.

# 11 THE COURT:

WHETHER IT'S MINOR OR MAJOR IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.

KEY QUOTE

# 12 PABLO FENJVES:

YES, I DID TRY TO POINT IT OUT.

# 13 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT YOU GAVE BACK IN JULY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

# 14 A:

I BELIEVE I SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A JEEP ALSO, BUT I MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED AND SAID IT HAD BEEN PARKED THERE A FEW DAYS EARLIER. AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I REMEMBER.

# 15 Q:

OKAY. DO YOU RECALL -- I'M DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO THE STATEMENT THAT COUNSEL BROUGHT UP ABOUT GOING OUT ON THE REAR PORCH IN RESPONSE TO HEARING THE BARKING.

# 16 A:

YES.

# 17 Q:

OKAY. AND YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO OUT ON THE REAR PORCH?

# 18 A:

THAT IS RIGHT. I DID NOT GO ON THE REAR PORCH.

# 19 Q:

DID YOU INDICATE AN EXPLANATION AT THE TIME OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING BACK IN JULY FOR WHAT THAT MISUNDERSTANDING MIGHT HAVE BEEN?

# 20 A:

YES. I THINK I SAID THAT I BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED BECAUSE WE WENT OUT ON THE PORCH, WE BEING THE POLICE AND I, AND LOOKED TOWARD THE RESIDENCE IN QUESTION.

KEY QUOTE

# 21 Q:

AND DID YOU POINT OUT A RESIDENCE TO THEM?

# 22 A:

YES, I DID.

# 23 Q:

AND WHAT RESIDENCE WAS THAT?

# 24 A:

THE ONE THAT WE'VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF.

# 25 Q:

NOW, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE ANGLE OF YOUR APARTMENT, NEVERTHELESS, THAT PHOTOGRAPH, PEOPLE'S 39 THAT YOU SEE NOW, THAT PHOTOGRAPH, DOES IT ACCURATELY DEPICT THE LOCATION THAT YOU LOOKED IN WHEN YOU HEARD THE BARKING?

# 26 A:

YES.

# 27 MR. COCHRAN:

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. OBJECT TO THE FORM. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THAT PART OF THE BUILDING. IMPROPER QUESTION.

# 28 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. SHE ASKED IF IT DEPICTS THE BUILDING, NOT THE PARTICULAR VIEW. SO OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

# 29 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE JEEP THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, PEOPLE'S 39, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME JEEP THAT YOU SAW BEING DUSTED FOR FINGERPRINTS BY THE POLICE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH?

# 30 A:

IT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME JEEP, YES.

# 31 Q:

AND THAT'S THE ONE YOU DESCRIBED AS GREEN?

# 32 A:

YES, MA'AM.

# 33 Q:

NOW, YOU RECALL BEING QUESTIONED DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ABOUT WHAT TIME YOU HEARD THE DOG BARKING, WHAT TIME YOU BEGAN TO HEAR IT BARK?

# 34 A:

UH, YES, I DO.

# 35 MS. CLARK:

AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 27 AT LINE 28. EXCUSE ME. LINE 24.

"QUESTION: AND IT WAS ABOUT 20 OR 25 MINUTES THEN INTO THE NEWSCAST --"

# 36 MR. COCHRAN:

JUST A MINUTE.

# 37 THE COURT:

HOLD ON, MISS CLARK.

# 38 MS. CLARK:

THIS WAS THE SAME PAGE COUNSEL JUST READ FROM.

# 39 MR. COCHRAN:

27.

# 40 THE COURT:

27, LINE 24.

# 41 MS. CLARK:

UH-HUH.

# 42 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU.

# 43 THE COURT:

IS THAT YES?

# 44 MS. CLARK:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 45 THE COURT:

THANK YOU.

# 46 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE BEING CROSS-EXAMINED THEN BY MR. UELMEN, AND HE ASKED YOU:

"AND IT WAS ABOUT 20 OR 25 MINUTES THEN INTO THE NEWSCAST THAT YOU FIRST HEARD THE DOG?" AND YOUR ANSWER WAS:

"NO. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES INTO --" EXCUSE ME. WHERE IS 28?

"-- INTO THE NEWSCAST THAT I FIRST HEARD THE DOG." AND THEN:

"QUESTION: DID YOU HEAR THE DOG CONTINUE TO BARK AS YOU WERE WATCHING THE NEWS?

"ANSWER: YES, I DID." AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED:

"FOR ABOUT HOW LONG?" YOU ANSWERED:

"YOU KNOW, FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES, AND THEN I LEFT." DO YOU RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

# 47 A:

YES, I DO.

# 48 MS. CLARK:

AND DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 25.

# 49 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU'VE INDICATED TO US PREVIOUSLY, SIR, THAT YOU HEARD DOGS BARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE?

# 50 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 51 Q:

SO THAT IN ITSELF WAS NOT UNUSUAL?

# 52 A:

NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL.

# 53 Q:

BUT -- NOW, ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT, THE SOUND OF THIS PARTICULAR DOG DID DRAW YOUR ATTENTION?

# 54 A:

YES, IT DID.

# 55 Q:

IT WAS AN UNUSUAL SOUND?

# 56 A:

YES, MA'AM.

# 57 MR. COCHRAN:

ASKED AND ANSWERED, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, IMPROPER REDIRECT, ALL THOSE REASONS.

# 58 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 59 MS. CLARK:

AND DIRECTING COUNSEL'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 25.

# 60 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU WERE ASKED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION AT LINE 16:

"SO IT WAS AN UNUSUAL SURROUNDING BARK TO YOU," YOUR ANSWER:

"RIGHT.

"QUESTION: THAT WAS ABOUT 10:15 TO 10:20," AND YOUR ANSWER:

"YES." AND THEN:

"QUESTION: DID THE BARKING STOP OR DID IT CONTINUE?" YOUR ANSWER:

"WELL, ABOUT THIS TIME, I STOPPED WATCHING THE NEWS AND WENT DOWN TO MY OFFICE AND I DID A LITTLE WORK AND DIDN'T COME BACK UPSTAIRS UNTIL ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK." DO YOU RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

# 61 A:

YES, I DO.

# 62 Q:

AND THAT IS STILL YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?

# 63 A:

YES, IT IS.

# 64 MS. CLARK:

AND ON PAGE 26, COUNSEL.

# 65 Q:

BY MS. CLARK: WITH REFERENCE TO THE TIME WHEN YOU WENT BACK UP TO YOUR ROOM AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE BARK THAT YOU HEARD AT THAT TIME. QUESTION AT LINE 18:

"DID IT SOUND LIKE THE SAME DOG THAT YOU HAD HEARD BARKING EARLIER AT 10:15 OR SO?" AND YOUR ANSWER:

"YES. IT WAS DEFINITELY THE SAME DOG." DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER?

# 66 A:

YES, I DO.

# 67 Q:

AND THAT IS ACCURATE?

# 68 A:

YES, IT IS.

# 69 Q:

AND SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994 BETWEEN 10:15 AND 10:20, YOU BEGAN TO HEAR A DOG BARKING IN AN UNUSUAL WAY?

# 70 MR. COCHRAN:

ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE FIFTH TIME.

# 71 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

# 72 PABLO FENJVES:

YES, IT IS.

# 73 MS. CLARK:

THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

# 74 PABLO FENJVES:

THANK YOU.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Pablo Fenjves

YES. I THINK I SAID THAT I BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED BECAUSE WE WENT OUT ON THE PORCH, WE BEING THE POLICE AND I, AND LOOKED TOWARD THE RESIDENCE IN QUESTION.

Explains the source of the 'rear porch' inconsistency raised on cross — he and police went out together, which may have caused the misunderstanding in the report.

Pablo Fenjves

YES. IT WAS DEFINITELY THE SAME DOG.

Confirms that the unusual bark he heard at 10:15 was still ongoing when he returned upstairs at 11:00 p.m., supporting the prosecution's timeline that Kato Kaelin's dog was in distress for a prolonged period after the murders.

Lance A. Ito

WHETHER IT'S MINOR OR MAJOR IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.

Ito sustaining Cochran's objection to Clark's characterization of the inconsistency as 'minor' — a reminder that framing factual disputes is the jury's province.

Pablo Fenjves

YES. I STOPPED WATCHING THE NEWS AND WENT DOWN TO MY OFFICE AND I DID A LITTLE WORK AND DIDN'T COME BACK UPSTAIRS UNTIL ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK.

Locks in the timeline: unusual barking at 10:15–10:20, Fenjves downstairs until 11:00, then same dog still barking — a pillar of the prosecution's time-of-death window.

Evidence (3)

People's 39

Photograph of the Nicole Brown Simpson residence, used to confirm the location Fenjves looked toward when he heard the dog barking

discussed, witness confirms it accurately depicts the location

Informal

Preliminary hearing transcript, pages 25–27 — Fenjves's prior testimony about timing of the dog bark and duration

read into record for rehabilitation/confirmation

Informal

Green Jeep visible in People's 39, identified by Fenjves as the same one he saw being dusted for fingerprints on the morning of June 13

identified by witness

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran objects that Clark's question about People's 39 is improper because the witness can't see that part of the building from his apartment. Ito overrules, distinguishing between depicting the building versus depicting the witness's particular view.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Cochran objects to Clark's final summary question about the 10:15–10:20 timeline as 'asked and answered for the fifth time.' Ito overrules, allowing Clark to nail down the core timeline point one final time.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Pablo Fenjves

prior inconsistent statement (rehabilitation)

Clark uses Fenjves's own preliminary hearing transcript to rehabilitate his testimony after cross-examination raised inconsistencies about the rear porch and the timing of the dog's barking. The redirect confirms his core account is consistent with his July testimony.

Objections

6 objections (1 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 4719 • 74 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103