Cross-examination of John Edwards (part 4)

📄 Cross-examination of John Edwards (part 4) — Tuesday, January 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JAN\31\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-JOHN-EDWA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 9 of 167

◀ Sidebar: cross-examination issue Redirect examination of John Edwards (part 1) ▶

Witness: Det. John Edwards
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, January 31, 1995 • Utterances: 44

Cochran concludes his cross-examination of Detective Edwards, pressing on three main areas: whether Edwards had follow-up conversations with Simpson about the January 1, 1989 domestic violence incident, Edwards's recognition of housekeeper Michelle Abudrahm's voice, and — most pointedly — why no effort was made to obtain more film to photograph Nicole Brown Simpson's injuries after the camera ran out. Edwards's explanation that Nicole 'wanted to go home to her kids' drew skeptical follow-up before Judge Ito cut the line short as repetitive.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I HAVE THAT REREAD OR SHOULD I JUST RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR?

# 4 THE COURT:

STATE IT AGAIN.

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

CERTAINLY.

# 6 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 7 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE EDWARDS, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US ABOUT THUS FAR WHEREIN HE DESCRIBED FOR YOU THE EVENTS OF THAT NIGHT AS REGARDS HE AND HIS WIFE? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?

# 8 A:

NO.

# 9 Q:

DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON ON A DAY AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

# 10 A:

NO.

# 11 Q:

DO YOU KNOW AN OFFICER BY THE NAME OF FARRELL?

# 12 A:

YES.

# 13 Q:

AND WAS HE ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO DID SOME INVESTIGATION ON THIS CASE?

# 14 A:

HE IS THE ONE THAT FILED THE CASE AS A MISDEMEANOR.

KEY QUOTE

# 15 Q:

SO DID HE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE?

# 16 A:

YES.

# 17 Q:

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT OF YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER OR NOT OFFICER FARRELL HAD ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON?

# 18 A:

JUST FROM WHAT FARRELL TOLD ME.

# 19 Q:

WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT HE TALKED TO HIM?

# 20 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, HEARSAY. DETECTIVE FARRELL WILL FOLLOW THIS OFFICER TO THE WITNESS STAND, YOUR HONOR.

# 21 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

# 22 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU SAW MICHELLE ABUDRAHM OUT AT THE VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECOGNIZED HER VOICE AS THE PERSON WHO TOLD YOU THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG AT THE PREMISES THERE?

# 23 A:

YES.

# 24 Q:

AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT HER VOICE THAT MADE YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

# 25 A:

IT WAS PROBABLY THE ACCENT OR SOMETHING, BUT I REALIZED IT WAS THE SAME PERSON FROM THE VOICE.

KEY QUOTE

# 26 Q:

WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY -- STRIKE THAT. WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE GROUNDS IN AND AROUND ROCKINGHAM WERE MUDDY ON THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, AS YOU CAME BACK TO THE RESIDENCE, OR AT ANY TIME?

# 27 A:

THAT WHOLE MOUNTAIN AREA APPEARED TO BE WET.

# 28 Q:

I PRESUME IT HAD RAINED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 29 A:

RIGHT.

# 30 Q:

THE POLAROID SHOTS THAT YOU TOOK AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION, WAS THAT AFTER YOUR PARTNER HAD TAKEN MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INTO THE BATHROOM AREA?

# 31 A:

NO, IT WAS BEFORE.

# 32 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO TAKE ANY SHOTS OR PICTURES OF HER BODY IN THAT -- THAT YOUR PARTNER SAW?

# 33 A:

WE WERE OUT OF FILM.

# 34 Q:

WELL, WE WENT THROUGH THAT BEFORE, BUT THERE WAS FILM IN THAT STATION, WAS THERE NOT?

# 35 A:

I WOULD IMAGINE SOMEWHERE IN THAT STATION THERE WAS FILM.

# 36 Q:

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO GET ANY FILM SO THAT YOU COULD GET PICTURES OF HER BODY AS SOON AS YOUR PARTNER SAW THEM THAT NIGHT?

# 37 A:

NO.

# 38 Q:

IN FACT, YOU NEVER ASKED ANYBODY FOR ANY FILM, DID YOU, AFTER IT RAN OUT?

# 39 A:

NO. SHE WANTED TO GO HOME TO HER KIDS.

KEY QUOTE

# 40 Q:

BUT YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE CAMERA HOME EITHER, DID YOU?

# 41 A:

DIDN'T HAVE ANY FILM.

# 42 Q:

OFFICER, YOU DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY FOR FILM?

# 43 THE COURT:

I THINK WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS ONE ALREADY.

# 44 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT DOES SOUND FAMILIAR, YOUR HONOR, YES. I THINK I DID ASK THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS GENTLEMAN AT THIS POINT.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Detective Edwards

NO. SHE WANTED TO GO HOME TO HER KIDS.

Edwards's justification for not seeking more film to photograph Nicole's injuries — implies victim preference overrode investigative protocol, but Cochran immediately undercuts it by noting they also didn't take the camera home or ask anyone for film.

Detective Edwards

HE IS THE ONE THAT FILED THE CASE AS A MISDEMEANOR.

Establishes that Officer Farrell, not Edwards, made the charging decision — potentially relevant to the defense's argument that the 1989 incident was minimized by LAPD.

Detective Edwards

IT WAS PROBABLY THE ACCENT OR SOMETHING, BUT I REALIZED IT WAS THE SAME PERSON FROM THE VOICE.

Vague and uncertain identification of Abudrahm by voice — 'probably the accent or something' is a notably weak basis for recognition.

Johnnie Cochran

THAT DOES SOUND FAMILIAR, YOUR HONOR, YES. I THINK I DID ASK THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF THIS GENTLEMAN AT THIS POINT.

Self-deprecating close that signals Cochran had exhausted productive territory; Judge Ito had just noted the question was repetitive.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Polaroid photographs taken at West Los Angeles Station of Nicole Brown Simpson's injuries on the night of January 1, 1989

discussed — Cochran challenged the failure to obtain additional film after the camera ran out

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Detective Edwards

Cochran pressed repeatedly on why no additional film was sought after the camera ran out, establishing that Edwards never asked anyone for film and did not take the camera home — despite the station presumably having film somewhere. Edwards's 'she wanted to go home to her kids' defense was left hanging.

strategic

Christopher Darden•Lance A. Ito

Darden objected to hearsay when Cochran asked about Farrell's conversation with Simpson, noting Farrell would testify next. Ito sustained and added it was irrelevant.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Johnnie Cochran

Cochran caught himself re-asking a question he'd already covered about the film, acknowledged it with self-deprecating humor before the judge could fully admonish him, and immediately rested.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Detective Edwards

omission / investigative failure

Cochran established that despite running out of film while photographing Nicole's injuries, Edwards never asked anyone for more film, did not take the camera home, and made no effort to document her injuries more thoroughly — implying the 1989 domestic violence call was not treated with appropriate seriousness.

⚔ Detective Edwards

vague identification

Edwards's claim to recognize Michelle Abudrahm by voice was undermined by his own hedging language ('probably the accent or something'), suggesting the identification was unreliable.

Witness Demeanor

(BRIEF PAUSE.) — noted at the start of the session before questioning resumed

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 4574 • 44 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103