Cross-examination of Mike Farrell (part 1) (1 of 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Mike Farrell (part 1) (1 of 2) — Tuesday, January 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JAN\31\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-MIKE-FARR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 9 of 167

◀ Pre-jury administrative matters Sidebar: examination scope objection ▶

Witness: Det. Mike Farrell
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, January 31, 1995 • Utterances: 147

Johnnie Cochran cross-examines Detective Farrell about his 1989 domestic violence investigation involving OJ and Nicole Brown Simpson. Cochran methodically establishes that Simpson voluntarily called Farrell on January 5th, admitted responsibility, expressed remorse, said he did not mean to harm Nicole, and promised to seek counseling — all of which Farrell confirmed. The examination ends at a sidebar after Cochran begins asking whether Nicole sought to drop charges.

# 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, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. DETECTIVE FARRELL IS ON THE WITNESS STAND. DETECTIVE FARRELL, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WISH TO COMPLETE YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?

# 3 MR. DARDEN:

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

# 4 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN.

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

# 6

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 7

BY MR. COCHRAN:

# 8 Q:

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FARRELL.

# 9 A:

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

# 10 Q:

YOU ARE PRESENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVE DIVISION; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 11 A:

THAT IS NOT CORRECT. I AM CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO WEST TRAFFIC DIVISION.

# 12 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU FORMERLY WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES?

# 13 A:

CORRECT.

# 14 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION ALTOGETHER?

# 15 A:

APPROXIMATELY SEVEN YEARS.

# 16 Q:

AND YOU ARE A SERGEANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 17 A:

I'M A DETECTIVE.

# 18 Q:

OKAY. AND BEFORE THAT, YOU WORKED AS A SERGEANT?

# 19 A:

I WAS A PATROLMAN, TRAINING OFFICER.

# 20 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND NOW YOU'RE WORKING AS A DETECTIVE?

# 21 A:

THAT IS CORRECT. I AM A DETECTIVE SUPERVISOR.

# 22 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE MATTER WAS INITIALLY HANDLED BY AN OFFICER EDWARDS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 23 A:

CORRECT.

# 24 Q:

AND YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW HIS REPORTS OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989, THEN YOU STARTED HANDLING THE CASE AS THE DETECTIVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 25 A:

YES.

# 26 Q:

AND IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU WROTE SOME REPORTS ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 27 A:

YES.

# 28 Q:

AND YOU SHARED WITH US THAT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU PREPARED A REPORT, AND IN THAT REPORT, MR. SIMPSON TALKED TO YOU OVER THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 29 A:

YES.

# 30 Q:

AND WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT? WAS THAT JANUARY 3RD OR THEREABOUTS?

# 31 A:

YES.

# 32 Q:

SO THE FIRST TIME YOU TALKED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON, JANUARY THE 3RD, THAT WAS IN THIS PHONE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU CALLED HIS HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 33 A:

CORRECT.

# 34 Q:

HIS WIFE ANSWERED THE PHONE?

# 35 A:

YES.

# 36 Q:

AND THEREAFTER, YOU TALKED TO HIM?

# 37 A:

CORRECT.

# 38 Q:

NOW, IN THAT CONVERSATION, MR. SIMPSON ADVISED YOU THAT BOTH HE AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN DRINKING AFTER COMING HOME FROM A PARTY; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 39 A:

YES. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.

# 40 Q:

AND THEY HAD BEEN, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, TO A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 41 A:

YES.

# 42 Q:

DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME HE INDICATED THEY CAME HOME FROM THIS PARTY, SIR?

# 43 A:

NO, I DO NOT.

# 44 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND HE TOLD YOU THAT AFTER THAT, AFTER COMING HOME FROM THIS PARTY AND BEEN DRINKING, A VERBAL DISPUTE BROKE OUT. DID HE TELL YOU THAT?

# 45 A:

YES.

# 46 Q:

AND HE ADMITTED THAT IN THIS VERBAL DISPUTE, THERE WAS A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION THAT RESULTED IN KIND OF A MUTUAL WRESTLING TYPE OF ALTERCATION IS THE WORDS HE USED, RIGHT?

# 47 A:

THAT'S HOW HE DESCRIBED IT.

# 48 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND THAT HE TOLD YOU THEREAFTER THAT WHEN HE SAW HIS WIFE, HE WAS SURPRISED TO SEE A BUMP OR A BRUISE ON HER FOREHEAD; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 49 A:

CORRECT.

# 50 Q:

BY THE TIME YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, YOU OF COURSE HAD SOME POLAROID SHOTS; IS THAT CORRECT --

# 51 A:

YES.

# 52 Q:

-- TAKEN? DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY PICTURES THERE WERE?

# 53 A:

THREE.

# 54 Q:

AND THEY WERE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

# 55 A:

YES.

# 56 Q:

AND WITH REGARD TO THE POLAROID CAMERA, DO YOU KNOW OR WAS THERE SUCH A CAMERA AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF JANUARY OF 1989?

# 57 A:

I WOULD ASSUME SO. I HAVE NEVER USED ONE.

# 58 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU WOULD ASSUME THERE WAS. AND I PRESUME THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OWNED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 59 A:

THAT OR THE OFFICERS THEMSELVES OWN THEM.

# 60 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH, THE FILM -- IF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES OWNED SUCH A POLAROID CAMERA, THE FILM WOULD GENERALLY BE ALSO OWNED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, RIGHT?

# 61 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 62 THE COURT:

YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS.

# 63 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: IF YOU KNOW.

# 64 A:

I WOULD ASSUME SO.

# 65 Q:

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DOES HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO BUY FILM, DON'T THEY?

# 66 A:

I HOPE SO, YES.

# 67 Q:

YES. AND THEY DID BACK IN JANUARY 1989; DID THEY NOT?

# 68 A:

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

# 69 Q:

THIS ISN'T ORANGE COUNTY. WE STILL --

KEY QUOTE

# 70 THE COURT:

NOT YET.

# 71 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: NOT YET. WE STILL HAVE FUNDS, RIGHT?

# 72 THE COURT:

IT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS, MR. COCHRAN.

# 73 MR. COCHRAN:

I'D BETTER HURRY UP SO I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY FURTHER --

# 74 THE COURT:

I THINK WE'VE TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT POLAROIDS.

# 75 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: AT ANY RATE, YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WERE FACILITIES FOR TAKING PICTURES OF INDIVIDUALS' INJURIES BACK IN JANUARY OF 1989 AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION?

# 76 A:

NOT FACILITIES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF INJURIES. I -- WE PREFER TO HAVE THE VICTIM BE TRANSPORTED TO SID PHOTO LAB FOR PROPER PHOTOGRAPHIC TYPE THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BETTER EQUIPMENT OBVIOUSLY.

# 77 Q:

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I MEAN, WHERE YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WAS NOT TRANSPORTED TO SID FOR PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN ABILITY AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS?

# 78 A:

I ASSUMED THAT SINCE I HAD THREE PHOTOGRAPHS GIVEN TO ME.

# 79 Q:

AND YOU SAW THEM. ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL. NOW, IN YOUR CONVERSATION OF JANUARY THE 3RD WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, YOU SPOKE ALSO WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 80 A:

YES, I DID.

# 81 Q:

AND I PRESUME, SIR, THAT YOU HAD NEVER MET WITH OR TALKED WITH EITHER OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, THAT IS EITHER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR O.J. SIMPSON, UP TO THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 82 A:

YES.

# 83 Q:

OKAY. AND IN HER CONVERSATION WITH YOU, DID SHE TELL YOU WHAT --

# 84 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

# 85 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 86 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR? I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE QUESTION.

# 87 THE COURT:

IT'S ASKING IF SHE SAID SOMETHING.

# 88 MR. COCHRAN:

I WAS GOING TO PHRASE THE QUESTION IN A WAY THAT YOU MIGHT NOT FIND OBJECTIONABLE.

# 89 THE COURT:

I WILL HEAR THE QUESTION.

# 90 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO TRY TO DO.

# 91 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER BROACHED OF WHAT -- WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER BROACHED OF WHAT CAUSED THIS ARGUMENT BETWEEN SHE AND HER HUSBAND IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY THE 1ST OF 1989? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

# 92 A:

SHE DID NOT GIVE ME DETAILS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THE ARGUMENT.

# 93 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET ME GET BACK TO MY QUESTION. WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT ARGUMENT, THE CAUSE OF THAT ARGUMENT DISCUSSED; YES OR NO?

# 94 A:

NOT THAT I RECALL, NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT CAUSED THE VERBAL DISPUTE.

# 95 Q:

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU AT ANY TIME HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE EDWARDS WHEREIN HE INDICATED TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD BEEN TOLD WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THAT ARGUMENT WAS?

# 96 A:

NOT THAT I RECALL.

# 97 Q:

AND YOU NEVER SAW ANY OF THE REPORTS, DID YOU, ANY OF DETECTIVE EDWARDS' REPORTS, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARGUMENT?

# 98 A:

I READ HIS FOLLOW-UP REPORT WHICH I REQUESTED. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTUAL FIGHT? NO, I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

# 99 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO AS YOU SIT HERE NOW EVEN TODAY, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT CAUSED THIS ALTERCATION OR CONFRONTATION; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

# 100 A:

NO, I DO NOT.

# 101 Q:

ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YOU THEN HAD OCCASION I GUESS AFTER THE JANUARY 3RD CONVERSATION, WHICH WAS THE FIRST ONE, TO HAVE A SECOND CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

# 102 A:

YES, I DID.

# 103 Q:

AND THE SECOND CONVERSATION WAS ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 5TH, 1989; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 104 A:

YES.

# 105 Q:

AND THAT CONVERSATION, MR. O.J. SIMPSON CONTACTED YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 106 A:

THAT'S CORRECT. HE CALLED ME AT MY DESK.

# 107 Q:

AND OF COURSE, YOU RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE AGAIN; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 108 A:

YEP. YES, I DID.

# 109 Q:

AND AT THAT TIME, HAD YOU COMPLETED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS PARTICULAR MATTER?

# 110 A:

WELL, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I HAD CLEARED THE CRIME. I IDENTIFIED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND I BELIEVE I HAD ENOUGH TO PRESENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEEK A PROSECUTION.

# 111 Q:

ALL RIGHT. BUT AS OF THE DATE JANUARY 5TH, 1989, THERE HAD BEEN NO DETERMINATION MADE AT THAT POINT WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS GOING TO FILE; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 112 A:

YES.

# 113 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SO INDICATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT?

# 114 A:

YES.

# 115 Q:

YOU COMPLETED YOUR PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION, RIGHT?

# 116 A:

YES.

# 117 Q:

AND IN THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD ON JANUARY 5TH, IS THIS THE CONVERSATION WHERE MR. SIMPSON VOLUNTARILY STATED TO YOU CERTAIN CONCERNS AND FEELINGS THAT HE HAD REGARDING THIS CASE?

# 118 A:

YES.

# 119 Q:

MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU, DID HE NOT, THAT HE REGRETTED THE ENTIRE INCIDENT? IS THAT CORRECT?

# 120 A:

YES.

# 121 Q:

THAT HE WAS SORRY THAT YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS?

# 122 A:

YES.

# 123 Q:

WENT ON TO CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY THAT HE KNEW THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG. DID HE SAY THAT?

# 124 A:

YES, HE DID.

# 125 Q:

AND HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HIS WIFE NICOLE. HE TOLD YOU THAT; DID HE NOT?

# 126 A:

YES.

# 127 Q:

HE WENT ON TO TELL YOU THAT HE PLANNED TO SCHEDULE BOTH HIMSELF AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOR COUNSELING; DID HE NOT?

KEY QUOTE

# 128 A:

YES.

# 129 Q:

AND THAT HE HAD ASKED YOU TO COMMUNICATE THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHEN YOU TOOK THE CASE TO THEM FOR FILING OR WHATEVER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 130 A:

CORRECT.

# 131 Q:

AND IN THAT CONVERSATION OF JANUARY 5TH, YOU TOLD HIM AT SOME POINT THAT YOU FELT THAT AT SOME POINT, HE HAD TO STAND UP AND ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ACTIONS THAT HE HAD TAKEN ON JANUARY 1ST; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 132 A:

YES.

# 133 Q:

AND AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU ARE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT AT SOME POINT THEREAFTER, AFTER JANUARY 5TH, MR. SIMPSON DID IN FACT COME INTO A COURT, ENTERED A NO CONTEST PLEA AND RESOLVED THAT MATTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 134 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

# 135 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. HE IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. DO YOU KNOW?

# 136 DET. MIKE FARRELL:

I NEVER SAW MR. SIMPSON IN COURT EVER.

# 137 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM IN COURT, BUT YOU BECAME AWARE, DID YOU NOT, THAT THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED BY WAY OF A NOLO CONTENDERE PLEA BY MR. O.J. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 138 A:

YES.

# 139 Q:

AND AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU KNEW THAT MATTER WAS RESOLVED WITHOUT A TRIAL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 140 A:

YES.

# 141 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S BACK UP FOR A MOMENT. PRIOR TO MR. SIMPSON ENTERING THE NO CONTEST PLEA, DID MRS. NICOLE SIMPSON SEEK TO DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST HIM?

# 142 A:

WHEN I FIRST --

# 143 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION.

# 144 DET. MIKE FARRELL:

WHEN I FIRST MET HER ON THE 4TH --

# 145 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION.

# 146 THE COURT:

WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

# 147 MR. DARDEN:

CAN WE APPROACH?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness (Det. Farrell)

I BELIEVE I HAD ENOUGH TO PRESENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEEK A PROSECUTION.

Establishes that Farrell considered the case solid enough to prosecute — contextualizing the subsequent no-contest plea.

Witness (Det. Farrell)

YES, HE DID.

Confirming that Simpson 'knew that his conduct was wrong' — a direct admission of guilt relayed through the detective.

Examiner (Cochran)

HE WENT ON TO TELL YOU THAT HE PLANNED TO SCHEDULE BOTH HIMSELF AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOR COUNSELING; DID HE NOT?

Cochran uses Farrell to paint Simpson as cooperative and remorseful, undercutting the prosecution's domestic violence narrative.

Examiner (Cochran)

THIS ISN'T ORANGE COUNTY. WE STILL --

A joking aside referencing Orange County's 1994 bankruptcy, drawing a laugh from the judge.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Three Polaroid photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson's injuries taken around January 1, 1989

discussed

Informal

Detective Edwards' follow-up report from the January 1, 1989 incident

discussed

Informal

Farrell's own investigative reports from January 1989, including accounts of phone conversations with OJ Simpson

discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Det. Farrell

Cochran walks Farrell through Simpson's January 5th voluntary phone call, extracting a series of admissions: Simpson regretted the incident, was sorry police got involved, claimed responsibility, acknowledged his conduct was wrong, said he didn't mean to harm Nicole, and promised counseling.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Judge Ito

Cochran makes a joke about whether Los Angeles still had funds (unlike bankrupt Orange County) to buy Polaroid film. The judge quips 'Not yet' and then 'It may have a significant impact on this, Mr. Cochran,' drawing light banter before shutting it down.

light

Johnnie Cochran•Christopher Darden•Judge Ito

Darden objects to a hearsay question about what Nicole told the detective. Cochran asks to finish rephrasing; the judge allows it and Cochran navigates around the hearsay issue.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Johnnie Cochran / Judge Ito

Cochran jokes 'This isn't Orange County. We still—' referencing the county's 1994 bankruptcy; Judge Ito responds 'Not yet' and adds that it 'may have a significant impact on this case.'

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 4599 • 147 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103