Direct examination of Mike Farrell

📄 Direct examination of Mike Farrell — Tuesday, January 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JAN\31\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-MIKE-FAR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 9 of 167

◀ Edwards excusal and Farrell called Pre-jury administrative matters ▶

Witness: Det. Mike Farrell
Examiner: Christopher Darden
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, January 31, 1995 • Utterances: 161

Detective Farrell testified about his 1989 investigation of the New Year's Day domestic battery incident at Rockingham, recounting OJ Simpson's telephone admissions that the altercation became physical and that he caused Nicole's injuries. Simpson later called Farrell unprompted to express remorse, acknowledge he knew what he did was wrong, and ask that his contrition be relayed to the City Attorney — the case was ultimately filed as one count of spousal battery.

# 1 Q:

SIR, WERE YOU A POLICE OFFICER EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD ON JANUARY 3, 1989?

# 2 A:

YES, I WAS.

# 3 Q:

AND WHAT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT AT THAT TIME?

# 4 A:

I WAS ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. DETECTIVES ASSIGNED TO THE CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS DETAIL.

# 5 Q:

AND DID THE CRIMES AGAINST PERSON DETAIL INCLUDE SPOUSAL BATTERY CASES?

# 6 A:

YES, THEY DID.

# 7 Q:

OKAY. DID YOU RESPOND TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

# 8 A:

NO, I DID NOT.

# 9 Q:

YOU WERE NOT A PATROL OFFICER AT THAT TIME?

# 10 A:

THAT IS NOT -- I WAS NOT A PATROL OFFICER, NO.

# 11 Q:

AND ON JANUARY 3, 1989, WERE YOU ASSIGNED A CASE INVOLVING NICOLE BROWN AND THIS DEFENDANT?

# 12 A:

YES, I WAS.

# 13 Q:

OKAY. AND WHO ASSIGNED YOU THAT CASE, IF YOU RECALL?

# 14 A:

MY SUPERVISOR WAS DETECTIVE SERGEANT GLENN VARNER.

# 15 Q:

AND WHAT IS THE NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR A DETECTIVE IN WEST L.A. DIVISION AFTER A CASE IS ASSIGNED TO THEM?

# 16 A:

WELL, THIS CASE -- AFTER IT WAS ASSIGNED TO ME, MY SUPERVISOR EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT I SHOULD DO WITH IT AND ADJUDICATE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY INTERVIEWING THE VICTIM AND THE DEFENDANT, IF POSSIBLE.

# 17 Q:

AND DID YOU INTERVIEW THE DEFENDANT?

# 18 A:

YES, I DID.

# 19 Q:

DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM IN PERSON?

# 20 A:

NO, I DID NOT. I INTERVIEWED HIM OVER THE TELEPHONE.

# 21 Q:

DO YOU RECALL WHO CALLED WHO?

# 22 A:

YES. I PHONED THE RESIDENCE.

# 23 Q:

HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU PHONE THE RESIDENCE BEFORE YOU FINALLY SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT?

# 24 A:

ONCE. I BELIEVE I CALLED ON THE 3RD OF -- IN THE LATER MORNING, BEFORE THE AFTERNOON.

# 25 Q:

OKAY. HAD SOMEONE ALREADY PREARRANGED A TIME WHEN THE TWO OF YOU WOULD SPEAK?

# 26 A:

NOT THAT I RECALL. I JUST MADE MY PHONE CALL.

# 27 Q:

OKAY. AND HE PICKED UP THE TELEPHONE?

# 28 A:

YES. NICOLE SIMPSON PICKED UP THE PHONE.

# 29 Q:

AND DID YOU NEXT SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT?

# 30 A:

AFTER I SPOKE WITH NICOLE, YES, I DID.

# 31 Q:

OKAY. AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDANT'S VOICE?

# 32 A:

YES, I DID.

# 33 Q:

WAS IT A VOICE YOU HEARD BEFORE?

# 34 A:

YES.

# 35 Q:

WHERE HAD YOU HEARD THE DEFENDANT'S VOICE BEFORE?

# 36 A:

NUMEROUS TIMES ON TELEVISION.

# 37 Q:

AND DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE OCCURRENCES OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

# 38 A:

YES, I DID.

# 39 Q:

AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

# 40 A:

HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT AFTER HE AND NICOLE RETURNED HOME AFTER A NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY, THAT THEY WERE READY -- THEY WERE IN THEIR BEDROOM AND A VERBAL DISPUTE BROKE OUT BETWEEN THEM AND THAT THE DISPUTE GOT OUT OF HAND AND IT BECAME PHYSICAL. HE TOLD ME THAT IT TURNED INTO A MUTUAL TYPE WRESTLING MATCH AND THAT WAS BASICALLY IT; NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.

# 41 Q:

DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE INJURIES NICOLE BROWN SUSTAINED?

# 42 A:

YEAH. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE -- BECAUSE I HAD A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWED INJURY TO HER FOREHEAD, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I LOOKED AT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT DEPICTED SOME INJURY TO NICOLE'S FOREHEAD AND HE SAID, "WELL, I KNOW. I WAS SURPRISED TO EVEN SEE THAT IT HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT."

# 43 Q:

DID HE DENY CAUSING THOSE INJURIES?

# 44 A:

NO, HE DID NOT.

# 45 Q:

DID HE ADMIT CAUSING THOSE INJURIES?

# 46 A:

YES, HE DID.

# 47 Q:

DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE 911 CALL TO THE POLICE?

# 48 A:

NO, I DON'T THINK I ASKED HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHONE CALL ITSELF, NO.

# 49 Q:

OKAY. SO BASICALLY THEN ALL YOU ASKED HIM WAS WHAT HAPPENED?

# 50 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 51 Q:

NOW, AFTER RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENDANT, DID YOU WRITE A REPORT?

# 52 A:

YES, I DID.

# 53 Q:

DID YOU INCLUDE IN THAT REPORT THE INFORMATION THE DEFENDANT GAVE YOU?

# 54 A:

YES, I DID.

# 55 Q:

DID YOU CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER?

# 56 A:

YES, I DID. I ASKED -- AFTER I DID THE INITIAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE, I TOLD NICOLE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER IN PERSON, IF SHE CAN MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO COME TO THE POLICE STATION. SHE AGREED AND SAID SHE WOULD COME DOWN THE NEXT DAY. SHE WOULD ALSO BRING HER TWO KIDS WITH HER, AND SHE DID COME DOWN AND MEET ME.

# 57 Q:

OKAY. AND SO YOU DID MEET NICOLE BROWN?

# 58 A:

YES, I DID.

# 59 Q:

WHAT DAY WAS THAT?

# 60 A:

I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE 3RD -- THE 4TH, THE 4TH OF JANUARY, THE NEXT DAY.

# 61 Q:

OKAY. AND WHAT INJURIES, IF ANY, DID YOU NOTICE ON HER FACE AND NECK AND HEAD AREA AT THAT TIME?

# 62 A:

I JUST NOTICED SOME BRUISING ON HER FOREHEAD. THAT WAS ALL.

# 63 THE COURT:

THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE WITNESS INDICATED THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FOREHEAD.

# 64 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU REINTERVIEW HER?

# 65 A:

YEAH. I EXPLAINED TO HER WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE AND I ASKED -- I EXPLAINED TO HER THE PROCEDURES THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL POLICE REPORT WITH HER AND ASKED HER TO REVIEW IT. WE REVIEWED IT TOGETHER. I ASKED HER, "DOES THIS ACCURATELY DEPICT WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE WEEKEND?" SHE SAID, "YES." I SAID, "IS THIS YOUR SIGNATURE ON THE REPORT?" SHE SAID, "YES, IT IS." AND THEN I EXPLAINED THAT I WOULD BE PRETTY -- PREPARING THE CASE FOR A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.

# 66 Q:

DID YOU REFER THE CASE TO THE L.A. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

# 67 A:

YES, I DID.

# 68 Q:

AND DO THEY HAVE A SPECIAL UNIT THAT HANDLES CASES LIKE THESE?

# 69 A:

I BELIEVE THEY DO. I MET WITH THE SUPERVISING ATTORNEY THERE AND PROVIDED HER WITH THE INFORMATION.

# 70 Q:

AND WHAT WAS THE SUPERVISING ATTORNEY'S NAME?

# 71 A:

MARY CLARE MOLIDOR.

# 72 Q:

YOU GAVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MOLIDOR ALL THE REPORTS?

# 73 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 74 Q:

DID YOU SHOW HER THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

# 75 A:

YES, I DID.

# 76 THE COURT:

HOW DO WE SPELL MOLIDOR?

# 77 DET. MIKE FARRELL:

I BELIEVE IT IS M-O-L-I-D-O-R.

# 78 THE COURT:

THANK YOU.

# 79 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU RECALL THE DATE IN WHICH YOU TURNED OVER YOUR CASE FILE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

# 80 A:

I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE AFTERNOON OF THE 4TH OR THE MORNING OF THE 5TH. I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT TIME.

# 81 Q:

AND AFTER YOU REFERRED THE MATTER OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DID YOU AGAIN SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT?

# 82 A:

YES, I DID. HE PHONED ME AT MY DESK EARLY IN THE AFTERNOON. I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER LUNCH.

# 83 Q:

WAS THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FILED?

# 84 A:

YES, IT WAS.

# 85 Q:

WHAT WAS FILED?

# 86 A:

ONE COUNT OF SPOUSAL BATTERY. I BELIEVE IT IS 273(A) OF THE PENAL CODE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

# 87 MR. DARDEN:

MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

# 88 THE COURT:

SURE.

# 89 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

# 90 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE TELEPHONE, JANUARY 5 -- THAT CALL WAS JANUARY 5, CORRECT?

# 91 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 92 Q:

WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM ON THE TELEPHONE ON JANUARY 5, WHAT DID HE SAY?

# 93 A:

WELL, MR. SIMPSON PHONED ME AND HE WAS INQUIRING ABOUT WHAT HIS CASE STATUS WITH HIS INCIDENT WAS. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I HAD TURNED OVER THE ENTIRE CASE FILE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND A DECISION HAD NOT YET BEEN MADE AND MR. -- THE DEFENDANT AND I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION. HE DISCUSSED WITH ME HIS FEELINGS ABOUT THE MATTER. HE WANTED TO RELAY TO ME THAT HE WAS SORRY THAT THE POLICE HAD TO COME TO HIS RESIDENCE AND THAT ME AS A DETECTIVE HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS. AND HE WAS REALLY REMORSEFUL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY AND THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE SEEKING -- WERE GOING TO SEEK COUNSELING TO RESOLVE THEIR FAMILY PROBLEMS, AND THAT I -- IF I COULD RELAY THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR FINAL DECISION IN FILING THE CASE. I TOLD MR. SIMPSON I WOULD DO THAT, BUT I ALSO TOLD MR. SIMPSON THAT IT IS MOST LIKELY HE IS LOOKING AT A FILING FOR A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND THAT HE -- HE WOULD ONE DAY HAVE TO FACE UP TO WHAT HAPPENED AND WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT.

# 94 Q:

DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING ANYTHING ELSE?

# 95 A:

NO. THAT WAS -- IT WAS ACTUALLY A PLEASANT CONVERSATION. I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ELSE.

# 96 Q:

OKAY. DID YOU WRITE A REPORT IN THIS MATTER?

# 97 A:

YES, I DID.

# 98 MR. DARDEN:

I HAVE A REPORT HERE, YOUR HONOR, DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989. DO YOU HAVE IT?

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

# 100 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, YOU HAVE A REPORT?

# 101 MR. DARDEN:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 102 THE COURT:

FEBRUARY 8TH.

# 103 MR. DARDEN:

YES.

# 104 THE COURT:

'89.

# 105 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: BEFORE I PROCEED WITH THE REPORT, DETECTIVE, DID THE DEFENDANT DESCRIBE FOR YOU OR MENTION TO YOU HOW NICOLE BROWN SUSTAINED THE INJURIES SHE SUSTAINED?

# 106 A:

AGAIN, HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS A RESULT OF AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN INTO THAT RESULTED IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION, MORE OF A MUTUAL TYPE WRESTLING MATCH AND NOTHING ELSE.

KEY QUOTE

# 107 Q:

DO YOU RECALL EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID IN THE CONVERSATION?

# 108 A:

I -- THAT IS THE MOST THAT I RECALL. UMM, IF I COULD LOOK -- IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE REPORT.

# 109 Q:

WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

# 110 A:

YES.

# 111 MR. DARDEN:

MAY I, YOUR HONOR?

# 112 THE COURT:

YOU MAY.

# 113 MR. DARDEN:

I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE WITNESS THE REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989, AND MR. COCHRAN HAS A COPY, AS I DO.

# 114 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 115 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE, IF YOU WOULD JUST READ THAT TO YOURSELF, PLEASE.

# 116 (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

# 117 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: HAVE YOU READ THE REPORT, DETECTIVE?

# 118 A:

YES.

# 119 Q:

DOES IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

# 120 A:

YES, IT DOES.

# 121 Q:

WHAT ELSE DID THE DEFENDANT SAY?

# 122 A:

HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS SORRY FOR WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE AND THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HER IN ANY WAY AND THAT HE WOULD SEEK COUNSELING WITH HER.

KEY QUOTE

# 123 Q:

DIDN'T HE ALSO TELL YOU THAT HE KNEW WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG?

# 124 A:

YES, HE DID.

# 125 Q:

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT?

# 126 A:

YES, I DID.

# 127 Q:

NOW, WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HIS WIFE, DID HE ELABORATE ON THAT AT ALL?

# 128 A:

NOT THAT I RECALL.

# 129 Q:

HE DIDN'T DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT AS A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH IN THIS JANUARY 5 CONVERSATION, DID HE?

# 130 A:

NO, HE DID NOT.

# 131 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

# 132 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: DID HE ASK YOU NOT TO FILE THE CASE?

# 133 A:

HE ASKED ME TO RELAY HIS FEELINGS ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

# 134 Q:

AND DID YOU DO THAT?

# 135 A:

YES, I DID.

# 136 Q:

THE REPORT THAT YOU JUST READ DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1989, THAT REPORT WASN'T IN EXISTENCE WHEN YOU REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 137 A:

NO. I, UMM, MAYBE NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR ON THE REPORT. IT IS DATED 2/8/89. THAT MAY BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. THE CASE WAS FILED ON JANUARY 30, 1989. I MAY HAVE TYPED THE -- I TOOK THE STATEMENT THAT HE GAVE ME THAT SAME DAY AND I MAY HAVE PUT THE WRONG DATE ON THERE. IT SHOULD BE -- I BELIEVE IT IS 1/8/89.

# 138 Q:

OKAY. BUT HE DID APOLOGIZE FOR HIS CONDUCT?

# 139 A:

YES, HE DID. HE WAS VERY CORDIAL ABOUT IT.

# 140 Q:

OKAY. NOW, AFTER YOU REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY FURTHER DIRECTIONS?

# 141 A:

YES. AFTER, UMM, SOME TIME, THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THE OTHER INCIDENTS THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY NICOLE. SHE APPARENTLY TOLD THE OFFICERS WHO WERE RESPONDING TO HER HOME THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN OUT THERE ON NUMEROUS OTHER TIMES AND THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THAT SITUATION.

# 142 Q:

AND DID YOU LOOK INTO THAT SITUATION?

# 143 A:

YES, I DID.

# 144 Q:

DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE OTHER SITUATIONS OR OCCASIONS WHEN LAPD OFFICERS WENT TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

# 145 A:

YES, I DID. I INQUIRED WITH SOME OF THE MORE SENIOR OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. THAT HAD BEEN WORKING THE DIVISION FOR OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

# 146 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT, NOT TOTALLY RESPONSIVE. "INQUIRED" MAY TEND TO BE HEARSAY. I AM NOT SURE OF THE RESPONSE AT THIS POINT.

# 147 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 148 MR. DARDEN:

WHAT QUESTION?

# 149 THE COURT:

THE QUESTION IS JUST A LITTLE OVERBROAD.

# 150 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, DID YOU TAKE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT OTHER POLICE UNITS OR OFFICERS HAD GONE TO ROCKINGHAM?

# 151 A:

I SPOKE WITH SENIOR OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. AND ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD EVER BEEN TO THE LOCATION ON ROCKINGHAM IN THE PAST.

# 152 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, I TAKE IT YOU ARE ABOUT TO LAUNCH INTO ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY AT THIS POINT?

# 153 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

# 154 Q:

BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE --

# 155 THE COURT:

EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.

# 156 MR. DARDEN:

YES?

# 157 THE COURT:

I TAKE IT YOU ARE ABOUT TO LAUNCH INTO ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY AT THIS POINT?

# 158 MR. DARDEN:

YES.

# 159 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR AFTERNOON RECESS THEN AT THIS POINT, IF YOU RECALL OUR SCHEDULE FOR TIME WE ACTUALLY GET STARTED AT 1:30. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK UNTIL A QUARTER OF 3:00 BECAUSE IT TAKES THE SHERIFFS A HALF AN HOUR TO CYCLE THE JURORS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL TAKE OUR AFTERNOON RECESS FOR THIS AFTERNOON. WE WILL RESUME AT 3:15. REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYBODY, HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY OR DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYBODY. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 3:15. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN RECESS. DETECTIVE, WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 3:15.

# 160 DET. MIKE FARRELL:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 161 (RECESS.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

HE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS A RESULT OF AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN INTO THAT RESULTED IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION, MORE OF A MUTUAL TYPE WRESTLING MATCH AND NOTHING ELSE.

Simpson's own characterization of the incident — framing it as mutual — which Darden then undermines by noting he dropped that framing in the later call.

Witness

HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS SORRY FOR WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE AND THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO HARM HER IN ANY WAY AND THAT HE WOULD SEEK COUNSELING WITH HER.

Simpson's apology, drawn out via the written report, is a direct admission of culpability for Nicole's injuries.

Witness

HE WANTED TO RELAY TO ME THAT HE WAS SORRY THAT THE POLICE HAD TO COME TO HIS RESIDENCE AND THAT ME AS A DETECTIVE HAD TO GET INVOLVED IN HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS.

Simpson initiated the follow-up call and expressed remorse — damaging to defense narrative that the 1989 incident was trivial or fabricated.

Witness

I ALSO TOLD MR. SIMPSON THAT IT IS MOST LIKELY HE IS LOOKING AT A FILING FOR A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND THAT HE WOULD ONE DAY HAVE TO FACE UP TO WHAT HAPPENED AND WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT.

Farrell's prescient warning to Simpson — carries dramatic irony in the context of the murder trial.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Photograph depicting injury to Nicole Brown's forehead, referenced during the initial telephone interview with Simpson

discussed

Informal

Original police report from the New Year's Day 1989 incident, reviewed with Nicole at the station on January 4

discussed

Informal

Detective Farrell's supplemental report dated February 8, 1989 (likely a typo for January 8), documenting Simpson's January 5 phone call and apology

introduced to refresh witness recollection

Notable Exchanges (2)

Christopher Darden•Witness

Darden walks Farrell through the two separate phone calls — the initial interview where Simpson called it a 'mutual wrestling match,' and the January 5 call where he dropped that framing and simply apologized — highlighting the inconsistency in Simpson's own statements.

strategic

Witness•Lance A. Ito

Farrell clarifies on his own that the February 8 date on his report is likely a typographical error and should read January 8, anticipating a potential credibility issue.

clarifying

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Judge Ito interrupts to ask how to spell 'Molidor' — a small, human moment from the bench.

Witness Demeanor

(WITNESS COMPLIES.) — witness reads report silently as directed by Judge Ito

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 4582 • 161 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103