Redirect examination of Stephen Valerie

📄 Redirect examination of Stephen Valerie — Thursday, July 13, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\13\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-STEPHE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 114 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Stephen Valerie Witness excused ▶

Witness: Stephen Valerie
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, July 13, 1995 • Utterances: 105

Cochran conducts redirect examination of Stephen Valerie, a witness who sat next to OJ Simpson on a flight to Chicago. Cochran rehabilitates the witness by establishing that all prior statements to police and defense investigators were summaries rather than verbatim transcripts, and by eliciting that Valerie had refused three separate media offers totaling $19,000 to sell his story.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Cochran.

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

Just a few questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to not wearing socks, you went to UCLA for how long? A couple years?

# 4 MR. VALERIE:

Two years, business school.

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

It's fairly common to see people who hang out on the west side wear casual clothes with no socks on and loafers?

# 6 MR. VALERIE:

Fairly common, yes.

# 7 MR. COCHRAN:

You see that a lot at UCLA, don't you, and Westwood?

# 8 MR. VALERIE:

You see it generally I think all over the area.

# 9 MR. COCHRAN:

Not only in California, and other states also?

# 10 MR. VALERIE:

I guess it depends on the weather. It was summertime and it was warm.

# 11 MR. COCHRAN:

Now, you have talked to either Defense investigators or the police on at least four occasions that you've been asked about here today; is that correct?

# 12 MR. VALERIE:

Yes. Two--two police investigators and twice with Mr. Pavelic.

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

And let's--let me make sure of the chronology. As I understand it, the first authorities you spoke to in this case were to the LAPD, Detective Kilcoyne before you ever talked to any Defense investigators; isn't that right?

# 14 MR. VALERIE:

That actually is not correct.

# 15 MR. COCHRAN:

Okay. Who did you talk to first as far as authority?

# 16 MR. VALERIE:

I phoned up the very next--uh, it would have been Tuesday morning Washington D.C. time, probably about 7:00 A.M. so would have been placed at 4:00 A.M. or so in Los Angeles. I phoned up to let someone know at the LAPD that I indeed sat next to Mr. Simpson that flight and that he was in Chicago to let them know that. I wasn't--where I was living, I didn't have a TV, I didn't have a lot of access to information. Just heard the news secondhand and made that phone call.

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

Well--I'm sorry.

# 18 MR. VALERIE:

Yeah. The person who answered the phone said, you know, I should call back another time, that no one was really around to take the information, no investigator, and gave me a number to call back. So that was my first contact.

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

So the first call was then on the 14th, correct?

# 20 MR. VALERIE:

Uh, or Tuesday.

# 21 MR. COCHRAN:

Or was that the 13th?

# 22 MR. VALERIE:

Tuesday, whatever that Tuesday was.

# 23 MR. COCHRAN:

That Tuesday will be the 14th. Okay. What you were doing, you were calling the police to try to assist them in case they didn't know where Mr. Simpson was; is that correct?

# 24 MR. VALERIE:

That's correct.

# 25 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. That's leading.

# 26 THE COURT:

It is.

# 27 MR. COCHRAN:

I'll ask it another way. You're right.

# 28 MR. COCHRAN:

Why were you calling the police on Tuesday the 14th?

# 29 MR. VALERIE:

To forward information to the fact that I was with Mr. Simpson on a flight and give them that information. I--

# 30 MR. COCHRAN:

And then thereafter, you had occasion to speak to a police officer by the name of Kilcoyne, and that was the 16th; is that correct?

# 31 MR. VALERIE:

That is correct. I phoned him.

# 32 MR. COCHRAN:

You called him also; is that right?

# 33 MR. VALERIE:

Yes.

# 34 MR. COCHRAN:

And as I understand it, the statement you gave Detective Kilcoyne--

# 35 MR. COCHRAN:

And may I approach with all these statements?

# 36 MR. DARDEN:

Actually, can I get my copies, your Honor?

# 37 THE COURT:

Sure.

# 38 MR. DARDEN:

Thank you, sir.

# 39 MR. COCHRAN:

Now can I approach? With regard to these statements--

# 40 MR. COCHRAN:

And we'll do this quickly, your Honor.

# 41 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to Detective Kilcoyne, you gave these statements on or about June 16th, 1994; is that correct?

# 42 MR. VALERIE:

That's correct.

# 43 MR. COCHRAN:

And in all the statements that you've given in this case, have you been consistent with what you've told this jury here today?

# 44 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

# 45 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 46 MR. VALERIE:

That is correct. I've been very consistent.

# 47 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. And with regard, sir, to the statement written up by Kilcoyne, this was a telephonic interview; is that correct?

# 48 MR. VALERIE:

That is correct.

# 49 MR. COCHRAN:

He didn't send you a copy of this statement, did he?

# 50 MR. VALERIE:

No, he did not.

# 51 MR. COCHRAN:

And is this statement that counsel has been referring to, the June 16th statement, is that a complete and verbatim transcript of what you said to him at that time?

# 52 MR. VALERIE:

No. It is definitely not.

# 53 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. And when you talked with Mr. Pavelic on June 17th, the second statement, which is in kind of letter form, is that statement a correct and verbatim copy of what you said to Mr. Pavelic at that time?

# 54 MR. VALERIE:

No, it is not. It is a summary.

# 55 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. These are summaries. Both are summaries. And then, counsel was referring to a statement of June 23rd, `94 which--what is that? Why don't you look at it and see what that is. Is that a statement at all or what is that?

# 56 MR. VALERIE:

It refers to a--the second conversation I had when the press found out who I was, and I wanted to ask to see if I was breaking any rules of the court or any other laws by making a statement to the press.

# 57 MR. COCHRAN:

All right.

# 58 MR. VALERIE:

It was in particular relation to what had been publicly broadcast about the flight attendant saying he had his hand in his bag.

# 59 MR. DARDEN:

Objection, your Honor. This is hearsay.

# 60 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 61 MR. COCHRAN:

Well, at any rate--

# 62 THE COURT:

Excuse me. The jury is to disregard that comment, that last comment.

# 63 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 64 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to this June 23rd statement, it's addressed to somebody named bonnie, isn't it?

# 65 MR. VALERIE:

That is correct. Bonnie Barron.

# 66 MR. COCHRAN:

It's not even addressed to you, is it?

# 67 MR. VALERIE:

No.

# 68 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. Now, in fact, on that statement, at the top part, it says "From, to, subject, date." You're not even mentioned at the top, are you?

# 69 MR. VALERIE:

No. I'm only mentioned in the text.

# 70 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. And again, that is basically a letter to bonnie, right?

# 71 MR. VALERIE:

That is correct.

# 72 MR. COCHRAN:

Now, the final statement to--from Detective Croxley of--taken from you October 5th, 1994, look at that statement and see whether or not that's a verbatim statement of what you said to Detective Croxley.

# 73 MR. VALERIE:

I spoke with Detective Croxley probably 35 or 40 minutes and this has probably about 40 total words in this thing. So I'd be speaking rather slow if this were the verbatim document.

KEY QUOTE

# 74 MR. COCHRAN:

So that's not the whole--that's a summary again; is that right?

# 75 MR. VALERIE:

Absolutely.

# 76 MR. COCHRAN:

Now, you mentioned that you had some concern about violating the Court's rules. Have you been offered money to testify in this case?

# 77 MR. VALERIE:

Yes, I have, on a number of occasions.

# 78 MR. COCHRAN:

On how many occasions have you been offered money?

# 79 MR. VALERIE:

Three specific times.

# 80 MR. COCHRAN:

And how much--by whom were you offered money the first time?

# 81 MR. VALERIE:

By whom?

# 82 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes. Which companies?

# 83 MR. VALERIE:

Individual or company?

# 84 MR. COCHRAN:

Which company?

# 85 MR. VALERIE:

Television show? I don't remember the order. The three companies were Current Affair, Hard Copy and Inside Edition.

# 86 MR. COCHRAN:

Well, let's take them in reverse--

# 87 THE COURT:

Alphabetical order.

# 88 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes. I was going to say in order of there terribleness, but I won't say that.

KEY QUOTE

# 89 MR. COCHRAN:

Let's take them, as the Court says, in alphabetical order. And I guess that would be Current Affair?

KEY QUOTE

# 90 MR. VALERIE:

Current Affair, $10,000.

# 91 MR. COCHRAN:

And let's see. The next one would be Hard Copy. How much did they offer you?

# 92 MR. VALERIE:

$6,000.

# 93 MR. COCHRAN:

The last would be is it Inside Edition?

# 94 MR. VALERIE:

That's correct. 3,000.

# 95 MR. COCHRAN:

How much did they offer you?

# 96 MR. VALERIE:

$3,000.

# 97 MR. COCHRAN:

Did you take any money from any of those people at all?

# 98 MR. VALERIE:

I did not.

# 99 MR. COCHRAN:

You did not sell your story at all in this case; is that correct, sir?

# 100 MR. VALERIE:

I did not.

# 101 MR. COCHRAN:

And why didn't you sell your story in this case?

# 102 MR. VALERIE:

I didn't feel it was appropriate in that I expected I might be a witness in this case and didn't think it's very good to compromise the story, someone might think that you tainted the story to get a sum of money.

KEY QUOTE

# 103 MR. COCHRAN:

And have you come here and told us the truth today?

# 104 MR. VALERIE:

Yes, I have.

# 105 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you very kindly.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Stephen Valerie

I spoke with Detective Croxley probably 35 or 40 minutes and this has probably about 40 total words in this thing. So I'd be speaking rather slow if this were the verbatim document.

Undermines cross-examination's use of the Croxley statement by showing it was a highly truncated summary, not a reliable record of what Valerie actually said.

Stephen Valerie

I didn't feel it was appropriate in that I expected I might be a witness in this case and didn't think it's very good to compromise the story, someone might think that you tainted the story to get a sum of money.

Bolsters credibility by showing Valerie proactively protected his testimony from financial corruption.

Lance A. Ito

Alphabetical order.

A rare light interjection from the judge, cutting off Cochran's rhetorical buildup.

Johnnie Cochran

I was going to say in order of there terribleness, but I won't say that.

Cochran's signature showmanship, getting in a jab at tabloid media while appearing to hold back.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Statement to Detective Kilcoyne, telephonic interview, June 16, 1994

discussed, characterized as summary not verbatim transcript

Informal

Statement in letter form to Mr. Pavelic, June 17, 1994

discussed, characterized as summary

Informal

Document addressed to 'Bonnie Barron', June 23, 1994

discussed, shown not to be a formal statement directed to witness

Informal

Statement taken by Detective Croxley, October 5, 1994

discussed, shown to be approximately 40 words from a 35-40 minute interview

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Stephen Valerie

Cochran walks through all four prior statements and gets Valerie to confirm each was a summary, not a verbatim record — systematically neutralizing the cross-examination's impeachment attempts.

strategic

Stephen Valerie•Johnnie Cochran

Valerie reveals he was offered $10,000 by Current Affair, $6,000 by Hard Copy, and $3,000 by Inside Edition, and declined all three offers.

revealing

Lance A. Ito•Johnnie Cochran

Judge interjects 'Alphabetical order' when Cochran hints he would rank the tabloid shows by 'terribleness,' prompting Cochran to play along with the joke.

light

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito / Johnnie Cochran

Judge Ito cuts off Cochran's tabloid ranking with 'Alphabetical order,' and Cochran quips he was going to order them by 'terribleness' but refrains.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Stephen Valerie

prior inconsistent statement

Prosecution on cross had used the four prior statements to suggest inconsistency; Cochran on redirect neutralized this by having Valerie confirm all four were summaries rather than complete or verbatim records of what he actually said.

Objections

3 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 6830 • 105 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103