Sidebar: dome light admissibility

📄 Sidebar: dome light admissibility — Wednesday, July 19, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\19\SIDEBAR-DOME-LIGHT-ADMISSIBILI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 118 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of John Meraz (part 2) Cross-examination of John Meraz (part 3) ▶

Date: Wednesday, July 19, 1995 • Utterances: 22

The prosecution sought to introduce a photograph of a missing dome light cover from OJ Simpson's Bronco through a tow truck driver witness. Judge Ito ruled the photo couldn't be used with this witness, finding that tow truck drivers don't typically notice interior dome lights, though he allowed Clark to ask the witness a simple yes/no question about whether he observed it. Cochran also raised concerns about the photo being taken months after the crime and the car being unsecured in the interim.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

Your Honor, my objection to the photograph is I think that photograph was taken, according to Mr. Scheck, in August or something like that, so it is unfair. I don't know what the condition was. This was June 15th. That wasn't taken by that point. It would be unfair to ask him.

# 3 MS. CLARK:

No one--someone took that dome light cover or lightbulb off. In fact, it was first discovered by the police when they took the passenger seat out of the car. There is testimony that will be elicited. And I will submit it is subject to a motion, ask the Court receive it subject to a motion to strike. We will lay the foundation for it.

# 4 THE COURT:

Miss Clark, aren't we wasting a lot of time with this particular aspect, because tow truck drivers aren't going to pay any attention to the inside lights of a car. I'm not saying it is ridiculous, but it is not likely that a tow truck driver is going to pay attention to the dome lights in the car, whether or not they burned out or taken out. They are just interested in the damage that would come from towing.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, the removal of a dome light cover--we are not just talking about a burned out lightbulb here.

# 6 THE COURT:

I understand.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

A missing piece.

# 8 THE COURT:

You can ask him if he noted it, yes or no.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

Okay.

# 10 THE COURT:

Then sometime later you will be able to put in the photograph.

# 11 MR. COCHRAN:

Well, your Honor--

# 12 MS. CLARK:

But--

# 13 THE COURT:

He said, "I inspected this car--"

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

Yeah. Can I--

# 15 THE COURT:

--"For blood."

# 16 MR. COCHRAN:

I asked for this appearance and I just want to indicate--and I agree with you, your Honor, but the other point, we don't know when that was taken. This car was so insecure, isn't that also relevant?

# 17 THE COURT:

All I'm saying is she can ask did you happen to see if the dome light was there.

# 18 MR. COCHRAN:

I think we have asked that already.

# 19 THE COURT:

He said he didn't pay any attention to that.

# 20 MR. COCHRAN:

That is the point.

# 21 THE COURT:

But if you ever see blood in a car and the car is moving, the wind in the car blows blood up into the back. I mean, people look at headliners for blood in cars all the time. It is not an uncommon experience if you tow these things. But you don't get to use the photograph with this witness.

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you, your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Lance A. Ito

tow truck drivers aren't going to pay any attention to the inside lights of a car. I'm not saying it is ridiculous, but it is not likely that a tow truck driver is going to pay attention to the dome lights in the car, whether or not they burned out or taken out. They are just interested in the damage that would come from towing.

Ito's practical skepticism drives his ruling — he limits the photograph but allows a narrow question, balancing relevance against foundation problems.

Johnnie Cochran

We don't know when that was taken. This car was so insecure, isn't that also relevant?

Cochran raises chain-of-custody and tampering implications — the unsecured Bronco is a recurring defense theme about evidence integrity.

Lance A. Ito

But you don't get to use the photograph with this witness.

Clean, direct ruling ending the dispute — photograph deferred, not excluded permanently.

Marcia Clark

The removal of a dome light cover -- we are not just talking about a burned out lightbulb here. A missing piece.

Clark distinguishes the significance of the evidence: a physically removed cover implies deliberate tampering, not normal wear.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Photograph of the Bronco's dome light cover, reportedly taken in August — showing a missing dome light cover or bulb

challenged; Ito defers it from this witness, leaves door open for later

Notable Exchanges (2)

Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark

Ito questions the utility of the dome light evidence with a tow truck driver witness; Clark pushes back that a physically missing cover is meaningfully different from a burned-out bulb, and Ito accepts that distinction enough to allow a yes/no question.

strategic

Lance A. Ito•Johnnie Cochran

Cochran raises the insecure chain of custody for the Bronco as an additional objection; Ito essentially bypasses it by ruling on witness foundation grounds alone.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Ito goes on an impromptu tangent about how blood can blow toward headliners when a car is moving while being towed — a surprisingly specific piece of forensic trivia delivered matter-of-factly mid-ruling.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 6926 • 22 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103