Cross-examination of Mike Farrell (part 2)

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

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 9 of 167

◀ Sidebar: examination scope objection Cross-examination of Mike Farrell (part 1) ▶

Witness: Det. Mike Farrell
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, January 31, 1995 • Utterances: 108

Cochran cross-examines Detective Farrell about the 1989 domestic violence investigation, establishing that Nicole Brown Simpson did not want to prosecute OJ Simpson and that Mark Fuhrman was the only officer among approximately ten interviewed who submitted a written report — a letter referencing a 1985 incident at Rockingham. Cochran methodically confirms that no documented police reports of prior calls to the Rockingham residence were found in the computer system, while planting a question about whether West LA officers made social visits to Simpson's home.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

# 3 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND? I CAN TRY TO PHRASE IT AGAIN.

# 4 A:

CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT?

# 5 Q:

CERTAINLY, SIR. PRIOR TO MR. SIMPSON ENTERING A PLEA TO THIS MISDEMEANOR CHARGE OF 273.5 P.C., DID MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON INDICATE A DESIRE TO DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST HER HUSBAND AND HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY HEARING?

# 6 A:

WELL, WHEN I FIRST MET HER ON THE 4TH, SHE BROUGHT THE KIDS WITH HER AND I DISCUSSED WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE TYPE OF CASES, AND I WANTED HER INPUT ABOUT HER FEELINGS TOWARDS PROSECUTION. AT THAT TIME, SHE SAID IF SHE COULD AVOID IT, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO PROSECUTE. BUT I TOLD HER THAT NO MATTER WHAT SHE TOLD ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PROSECUTE, I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEN I DISCUSSED SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY DO, AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE CITY ATTORNEY HEARING. AND THEN AT THAT TIME, SHE SAID, "WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE NEAT."

# 7 Q:

LET ME JUST BACK UP. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU SPELLED IT OUT. ON JANUARY 4TH, '89, YOU CONTACTED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. AT THAT TIME, SHE TOLD YOU SHE DID NOT WANT TO PROSECUTE, BUT WOULD WELCOME A CITY ATTORNEY HEARING. THAT'S AN INFORMAL HEARING AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, RIGHT?

# 8 A:

CORRECT.

# 9 Q:

SIT AROUND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND YOU DISCUSS THIS MATTER, RIGHT?

# 10 A:

YES.

# 11 Q:

AND SO THEREAFTER, YOU TOLD HER THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT, THEY MAY WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CHARGES WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTED TO PROSECUTE OR NOT. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

# 12 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 13 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND ULTIMATELY, WE KNOW THAT MR. SIMPSON DID ENTER THIS NO CONTEST PLEA TO THE MISDEMEANOR CHARGES, RIGHT?

# 14 A:

YES.

# 15 Q:

YOU WERE NOT IN COURT THAT DAY HOWEVER?

# 16 A:

YES, I WAS.

# 17 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID SEE HIM ENTER THE PLEA?

# 18 A:

NO. I NEVER SAW MR. SIMPSON. I BELIEVE I WENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO WAS ROB PRINGLE AT THE TIME. I APPEARED IN COURT THAT DAY AND I BELIEVE -- I STAYED OUTSIDE. THEY KEPT ME OUTSIDE IN THE HALL. SO I NEVER -- THEY JUST TOLD ME WHAT HAPPENED.

# 19 Q:

SO YOU WERE IN THE HALLWAY?

# 20 A:

YEAH.

# 21 Q:

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. NOW, JUST BEFORE THE BREAK, MR. DARDEN WAS STARTING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION ABOUT OTHER INCIDENTS INVOLVING ROCKINGHAM, AND THEN WE TOOK A BREAK; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 22 A:

YES.

# 23 Q:

WHEN YOU TOOK THE BREAK, DID YOU GO UP AND TALK TO MR. DARDEN ABOUT THAT?

# 24 A:

NO. WE JUST WENT UP TO THE OFFICE. I HAD A DRINK OF WATER.

# 25 Q:

HE NEVER ASKED YOU WHAT THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE?

# 26 A:

NO, HE DID NOT.

# 27 Q:

HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS GOING TO COME BACK AND NOT ASK YOU THOSE QUESTIONS?

# 28 A:

NO, HE DID NOT.

# 29 Q:

WHAT IF I ASKED YOU THOSE QUESTIONS?

KEY QUOTE

# 30 A:

I'LL ANSWER THEM.

# 31 Q:

DO I WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWERS? I'LL STRIKE THAT. NOW, AT ANY RATE, YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AS ONE OF THE DETECTIVES, YOU TOLD US JUST PRIOR TO THE BREAK THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO TALK WITH SOME OFFICERS AT THAT PARTICULAR STATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 32 A:

THAT'S CORRECT. THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO POSSIBLE OTHER INCIDENTS UP AT THE RESIDENCE.

# 33 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU TALKED TO SOME OFFICERS. HOW MANY -- JUST TELL ME IN NUMBER, HOW MANY OFFICERS DID YOU TALK TO ALTOGETHER?

# 34 A:

I CAN'T RECALL. MAYBE 10.

# 35 Q:

AND DID YOU TAKE ANY REPORTS FROM ANY OF THOSE OFFICERS?

# 36 A:

I REQUESTED IF THEY HAD ANY INFORMATION, TO WRITE OUT A REPORT AND GIVE IT TO ME.

# 37 Q:

AND YOU GOT A REPORT FROM ONE OFFICER; DID YOU NOT?

# 38 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 39 Q:

AND THAT OFFICER'S NAME IS MARK FUHRMAN?

# 40 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 41 Q:

AND WAS THAT THE ONLY WRITTEN REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED?

# 42 A:

YES.

# 43 Q:

AND MARK FUHRMAN WROTE YOU A REPORT ABOUT AN INCIDENT TO WHICH HE HAD ALLEGEDLY RESPONDED AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BACK IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 44 A:

HE WROTE A LETTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, YES.

# 45 Q:

AND THE LETTER HE WROTE IN 1989 WAS REFERRED BACK TO AN ALLEGED INCIDENT IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 46 A:

CORRECT.

# 47 Q:

AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE OF JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

# 48 A:

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL, YES.

# 49 Q:

AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR SEARCH, DID YOU SEARCH ANY RECORDS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY RADIO CALLS TO THAT LOCATION?

# 50 A:

WHAT THE CITY -- ACTUALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY DID.

# 51 Q:

I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU NOW, NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY. YOU.

# 52 A:

OH, MYSELF? NO. ALLS I DID WAS CONTACT THE COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

# 53 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID NOT CHECK ANY RECORDS IN WEST LOS ANGELES REGARDING POSSIBLE CALLS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 1989?

# 54 A:

I DID MY NORMAL SEARCH OF THE COMPUTER.

# 55 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY CALLS, RIGHT?

# 56 A:

NOT ANY -- NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED.

# 57 Q:

BY "NONE OF THEM DOCUMENTED", THAT MEANS THEY WEREN'T IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

# 58 A:

POLICE REPORTS.

# 59 Q:

THERE WERE NO POLICE REPORTS IN THE COMPUTER, RIGHT?

# 60 A:

I COULDN'T FIND THEM.

# 61 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LOOKED FOR THEM. I MEAN YOU WERE DOING A DILIGENT JOB, WEREN'T YOU?

# 62 A:

I TRIED.

# 63 Q:

YOU WERE A RESPONSIBLE OFFICER AT THAT TIME, RIGHT?

# 64 A:

YES, I AM.

# 65 Q:

AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TODAY, AREN'T YOU?

# 66 A:

YES, I AM.

# 67 Q:

OKAY. YOU KNOW HOW TO USE A COMPUTER?

# 68 A:

YES, I DO.

# 69 Q:

YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY POLICE REPORTS. AND THE ONLY OFFICER WHO STEPPED FORWARD TO WRITE A REPORT WAS THIS MARK FUHRMAN, RIGHT?

# 70 A:

YES.

# 71 Q:

AND DID YOU KNOW MARK FUHRMAN PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR TIME?

# 72 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCY?

# 73 MR. COCHRAN:

I'LL LINK IT UP.

# 74 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 75 DET. MIKE FARRELL:

HE'S BEEN WORKING WEST L.A. AND WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER AT WEST L.A.

KEY QUOTE

# 76 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: SO YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU KNEW HIM?

# 77 A:

YES, I DID KNOW HIM.

# 78 Q:

HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO COME TO TALK WITH HIM?

# 79 A:

WELL, HE IS -- HE WAS ONE OF THE SENIOR OFFICERS THERE. HE HAD MOST -- HE WAS ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO HAD THE MOST TIME THERE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND HE HAD BEEN THERE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.

# 80 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU TOLD US ABOUT TALKING TO 10 SENIOR OFFICERS, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE 10 SENIOR OFFICERS; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 81 A:

YES.

# 82 Q:

AND HE THEN WROTE THIS REPORT. AND WOULD THAT REPORT -- THE LETTER THAT HE WROTE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY OF 1989, WAS THAT SENT TO YOU OR TO THE CITY ATTORNEY?

# 83 A:

I BELIEVE HE GAVE ME THE ORIGINAL COPY OF IT AND I IN TURN GAVE IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

# 84 Q:

AND YOU'RE STILL IN WEST LOS ANGELES NOW; ARE YOU NOT?

# 85 A:

NO, I AM NOT.

# 86 Q:

AND WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

# 87 A:

I'M AT WEST TRAFFIC DIVISION.

# 88 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU LEAVE THE WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION?

# 89 A:

DECEMBER OF 1990.

# 90 Q:

YOU DESCRIBED WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO MR. DARDEN THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS A PLEASANT ONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 91 A:

THE PHONE CONVERSATION, YES.

# 92 Q:

WAS IT FAIRLY COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG WEST LOS ANGELES OFFICERS THAT ON OCCASION, SOME OF THEM WOULD IN FACT STOP BY MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE ON A SOCIAL BASIS?

# 93 A:

I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

# 94 Q:

YOU HAD NOT DONE THAT YOURSELF?

# 95 A:

NO, I HAVE NOT.

# 96 Q:

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHERS, DO YOU?

# 97 A:

NO.

# 98 Q:

BUT WHEN YOU CHECKED THE COMPUTERS FOR ANY OTHER POLICE REPORTS OR ANY OTHER TRIPS THAT OFFICERS HAD MADE OUT TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1989, YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY OTHERS AFTER YOUR DILIGENT SEARCH; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 99 A:

ALLS I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS DOCUMENTED --

KEY QUOTE

# 100 Q:

BEFORE JANUARY 1ST.

# 101 A:

-- REPORTS.

# 102 Q:

AND YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTED REPORTS?

# 103 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 104 Q:

RIGHT?

# 105 A:

NOT RESPONSES BY POLICE OFFICERS BY -- VIA THE RADIO CALL. ONLY DOCUMENTED REPORTS EITHER BY MR. SIMPSON HIMSELF OR NICOLE. I DID NOT FIND ANY.

# 106 Q:

OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

# 107 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.

# 108 THE COURT:

MR. DARDEN.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Detective Farrell

AT THAT TIME, SHE SAID IF SHE COULD AVOID IT, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO PROSECUTE.

Establishes Nicole's reluctance to prosecute OJ, undercutting the narrative of a victim seeking justice and consistent with the defense's portrayal of the 1989 incident as exaggerated.

Detective Farrell

HE'S BEEN WORKING WEST L.A. AND WE ALL KNOW EACH OTHER AT WEST L.A.

Confirms Fuhrman's insider status at West LA division and his relationship with Farrell, relevant to the defense's ongoing effort to cast Fuhrman as entangled with the Simpson case from the beginning.

Johnnie Cochran

WHAT IF I ASKED YOU THOSE QUESTIONS? ... DO I WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWERS? I'LL STRIKE THAT.

Cochran theatrically hints that Darden may have steered away from unfavorable redirect answers, then withdraws — leaving the jury to wonder what those answers would have been.

Detective Farrell

ALLS I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS DOCUMENTED -- REPORTS. NOT RESPONSES BY POLICE OFFICERS BY -- VIA THE RADIO CALL. ONLY DOCUMENTED REPORTS EITHER BY MR. SIMPSON HIMSELF OR NICOLE. I DID NOT FIND ANY.

Confirms the absence of any official record of prior police visits to Rockingham, lending credibility to the idea that informal or social police contacts went undocumented.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Farrell's police report documenting his January 4, 1989 contact with Nicole Brown Simpson

discussed

Informal

Mark Fuhrman's letter to the City Attorney referencing a 1985 incident at the Rockingham residence

discussed — confirmed as the only written report received from any of the ~10 officers interviewed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Detective Farrell

Cochran methodically establishes that Fuhrman — out of roughly ten senior West LA officers interviewed — was the sole officer to produce a written report, and that Farrell personally delivered it to the City Attorney.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Detective Farrell

Cochran asks whether it was common knowledge among West LA officers that some would stop by Simpson's Rockingham residence on a social basis. Farrell denies knowledge. Cochran immediately pivots to confirm no documented reports of such visits existed.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Christopher Darden

Cochran implies Darden may have coached Farrell during the break or decided not to ask certain questions on redirect. He asks whether Darden spoke with Farrell during the break; Farrell denies it.

provocative

Light Moments (1)

Johnnie Cochran

Cochran asks Farrell what would happen if he asked the questions Darden seemed to avoid, then immediately withdraws: 'DO I WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWERS? I'LL STRIKE THAT.'

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Mark Fuhrman

circumstantial bias / selective reporting

Cochran establishes that Fuhrman was the only officer of ~10 interviewed who wrote a report, that he was a long-tenured West LA officer who knew Farrell personally, and that his letter described a 1985 incident — laying groundwork to suggest Fuhrman had a particular motivation to insert himself into the Simpson case.

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 4601 • 108 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103