Cross-examination of Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran (part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran (part 3) — Thursday, June 15, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\15\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-LAKSHMANA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 96 of 167

◀ Sidebar Redirect examination of Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran ▶

Witness: Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 15, 1995 • Utterances: 147

Shapiro cross-examines Dr. Lakshmanan on two fronts: first, using a series of photographs of Ronald Goldman's stomach contents (Defense 1194-A through J) to show that the initial autopsy identified only spinach while the detailed photo analysis reveals tomato skin, vegetable fragments, and other material, getting the doctor to admit this constituted a 'mistake.' Second, Shapiro uses Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony to walk Dr. Lakshmanan through a time-of-death calculation for Nicole Simpson, combining gastric contents (3-4 hours after last meal at 8:00-8:30 PM) and rigor mortis data (fully fixed at 10:50 AM, placing death 'beyond' 9-12 hours prior) to land on an estimated window of 10:50 PM to 1:50 AM.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held in open court:)

# 2 THE COURT:

All right. Let's allow the doctor to find the place in his notes and refresh his recollection.

# 3 (Brief pause.)

# 4 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Okay. I examined the stomach bottle during the time we examined the body with Dr. Baden. My notes are here. The stomach shows fragments of the green leafy material, thick cord-like material, masticated. So my notes reflect that I did see the contents, and so my recollection is that the contents as described by Dr. Golden is accurate.

# 5 MR. SHAPIRO:

Spinach.

# 6 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

These are my original notes we took during the process. So that's why I pulled the original notes. That's why I did it.

# 7 MR. SHAPIRO:

Are you done? I'm sorry.

# 8 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

I'm done.

# 9 MR. SHAPIRO:

So your notes confirm what Dr. Golden put into the protocol, that there was spinach?

# 10 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 11 MR. SHAPIRO:

That was the only thing observable in the stomach contents of Ronald Goldman?

# 12 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 13 MR. SHAPIRO:

Your Honor, I have a series of photographs that I've shown to counsel. I would like to mark them 1194-A.

# 14 THE COURT:

All right. Defense 1194-A.

# 15 MR. SHAPIRO:

Through J.

# 16 THE COURT:

A through J.

# 17 (Deft's 1194-A through J for id = photographs)

# 18 MR. SHAPIRO:

May I approach the witness, your Honor?

# 19 THE COURT:

You may.

# 20 MR. SHAPIRO:

Doctor--

# 21 MR. KELBERG:

May I also?

# 22 MR. SHAPIRO:

Dr. Golden--Dr. Lakshmanan, are those the--look at 1194-A. Do you recognize that as a container that's used in your department?

# 23 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes. This is a container from our department.

# 24 MR. SHAPIRO:

Now, I'd like you to go through the next series of photographs and describe what you see, the next one being B I believe is the contents taken outside the container. Would you describe what 1194-B is?

# 25 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

This looks like some pasty brownish material with some greenish leafy fragments seen in it on gross examination of this photograph. This is 1194-A.

# 26 MR. SHAPIRO:

That looks like stomach contents containing spinach?

# 27 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Well, it's not like looking at it directly as we did on June 22nd, but it could be interpreted as such. But I would not like to interpret from the photograph, but from previous knowledge, yes.

# 28 MR. SHAPIRO:

So your previous knowledge in this case is better than the photographs?

# 29 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 30 MR. SHAPIRO:

Okay. Would you go through the remaining photographs and describe what they show?

# 31 MR. SHAPIRO:

And I think just out of respect, that these are probably not properly placed either on the elmo or to the jury.

# 32 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

I would like to know the--what this is--this particular photograph is. I can't--

# 33 MR. KELBERG:

Your Honor--

# 34 MR. SHAPIRO:

Does that look like tomato peel?

# 35 MR. KELBERG:

Excuse me. First of all, I'd ask that the witness speak up.

# 36 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 37 MR. KELBERG:

That Mr. Shapiro allow the witness to answer. And I'm not sure what photograph it is that the doctor--

# 38 THE COURT:

Yes. Doctor--yes. I hear you, Mr. Kelberg. Doctor, would you tell us which photograph you're looking at?

# 39 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

I'm looking at now D which shows a close-up of the same contents, and there's some laparo photographs of the--some material which has been separated out from the contents.

# 40 THE COURT:

And, doctor, which photograph is that?

# 41 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

This is 3 and--E and F and--

# 42 MR. SHAPIRO:

Can you describe further what appears to be separated in those? Do you see food particles?

# 43 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yeah. This looks like vegetable matter to me, and there's a close-up of the vegetable matter in--I think this is G, your Honor? G. And there's a close-up of other vegetable matter which looks like an H, and there's also some two close-up photographs of another vegetable matter here which is I, and this one is--

# 44 THE COURT:

Boy, you got me.

# 45 MR. KELBERG:

C maybe?

# 46 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

C. Probably C. Okay. C. These two I can't really understand as well as these fragments here. So I'll comment on these first.

# 47 THE COURT:

Doctor, the first two that you just picked up and put down, said that you can't tell what they are, what are the numbers on them? What are the letters on the back?

# 48 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

This is C and B. One of them, there's a fragment of what is seen on H, but these two look like two nondistinct brownish material which I'm having difficulty understanding what it is. But these close-up photographs of I, C and H, I can try and comment on.

# 49 MR. SHAPIRO:

All right. Would you say that these are a series of photographs that would show the process that a forensic pathologist would undertake to determine stomach contents?

# 50 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 51 MR. SHAPIRO:

First, you would see it in a container, then you would empty the container out, then you would spread the material out?

# 52 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 53 MR. SHAPIRO:

And upon spreading the material out, you would try to separate from there any undigested or partially digested material?

# 54 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

That is correct.

# 55 MR. SHAPIRO:

Then you would take close-ups of those materials and try to compare them to other samples you've seen in the past?

# 56 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 57 MR. SHAPIRO:

And now, by doing that process, would you say that you would be able to see if--did you do that?

# 58 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

I didn't do that. I just--as I told you, my only visualization of the stomach contents was on June 22nd, and I already described what we saw then. I didn't do this detail study which has been done here.

# 59 MR. SHAPIRO:

Is that a proper way to do it?

# 60 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

That is correct.

# 61 MR. SHAPIRO:

And in doing it the proper way, do you see any evidence of raisins?

# 62 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

The three photographs that I can clearly identify--because, you know, the other photographs have a distinct type of--it's not a close-up. So it's difficult to really define what it is. But these three close-ups show what is being photographed very clearly and I can comment on these if you want.

# 63 MR. SHAPIRO:

Do you see any evidence of raisins? Yes or no?

# 64 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Not in the photographs I see here, the ones which I said I could--

# 65 MR. SHAPIRO:

That's fine. Do you see any evidence of tomato skin?

# 66 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 67 MR. SHAPIRO:

Do you see any evidence of green pepper?

# 68 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

I don't know whether I can call it green pepper from a photograph, but there's a fragment which could represent green pepper fragment, but I can't tell whether it's a green pepper or not.

# 69 MR. SHAPIRO:

Do you see any evidence of onion fragment?

# 70 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Not from the distant photograph, I'm not able to tell whether it's there or not.

# 71 MR. SHAPIRO:

Are you familiar with a vegetable named kale?

# 72 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

No.

# 73 MR. SHAPIRO:

Do you see any evidence of spinach?

# 74 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

There is a leafy fragment here which could be spinach, and gross examination did show there was spinach.

# 75 MR. SHAPIRO:

By those photographs, are you testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that that vegetable you see is spinach?

# 76 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

It could be spinach. And from my gross examination, it would favor being spinach, but from--it's difficult to say more than that at this point.

KEY QUOTE

# 77 MR. SHAPIRO:

Are you medically certain it's spinach?

# 78 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

It looks like spinach I said.

# 79 MR. SHAPIRO:

Well, don't you have a term that you use within a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

# 80 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 81 MR. SHAPIRO:

And that's what an expert would say, right?

# 82 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 83 MR. SHAPIRO:

A lay person would say it looks like?

KEY QUOTE

# 84 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Well, when you see a photograph and of a vegetable fragment and especially it's only a portion of a leafy fragment, there could be other leafy vegetables which can look the same appearance. So it won't be able to--you won't be able to pinpoint exactly just for a cut fragment here. So I said it looks like.

# 85 MR. SHAPIRO:

Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty? Yes or no?

# 86 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

As I told you, from the initial examination of the stomach contents, it looked like spinach and this photograph would be consistent with that diagnosis.

# 87 MR. SHAPIRO:

Well, would you say then that if these are in fact the contents of Ronald Goldman that--the contents of the stomach, that many of the areas of food that was present were simply missed by you and Dr. Golden?

# 88 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Could you repeat it again, please, your question?

# 89 MR. SHAPIRO:

If in fact these are photographs of the stomach contents of Ronald Goldman--which you still have; is that correct?

# 90 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 91 MR. SHAPIRO:

Would you say that by offering your opinion that there was only spinach, that you made a mistake?

# 92 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

From the contents, yes. What was identified grossly, that's what--so it's not a mistake in the sense that from the initial impression because I know a detailed study was done as it was done in this particular instance as you showed in the photographs. So that way, it's a mistake, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 93 MR. SHAPIRO:

You previously testified that you asked Dr. Golden to make an estimate as to the time of death?

# 94 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes, I did.

# 95 MR. SHAPIRO:

And that's the most frequently asked question by homicide investigators in a case where there are no eyewitnesses, isn't it?

# 96 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 97 MR. SHAPIRO:

And Dr. Golden responded that he advised you based on--

# 98 MR. KELBERG:

Objection, your Honor, as calling for hearsay, lack of foundation.

# 99 THE COURT:

What's the nature of this? What's the source of this statement?

# 100 MR. SHAPIRO:

Testimony of Dr. Golden under oath, page 12, lines 26 through 28 of the preliminary hearing.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 102 MR. SHAPIRO:

And Dr. Golden told you based on the gastric contents that death, quote, was somewhere three to four hours after her last meal?

# 103 MR. KELBERG:

Excuse me, your Honor. That misstates the testimony with respect to telling Dr. Lakshmanan because the answer doesn't respond to the question that was asked.

# 104 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question.

# 105 MR. SHAPIRO:

Did Dr. Golden testify in your review of the preliminary hearing on page 12, line 26 through 28--I'll give it to you. Do you need it?

# 106 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes, please. As I told you yesterday, it's good to refresh one's memory. Page 28, sir?

# 107 MR. SHAPIRO:

Page 12, line 26 through 28. Did Dr. Golden testify that based on the gastric contents--

# 108 THE COURT:

Hold on. Let him get the page.

# 109 (Brief pause.)

# 110 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes. I've got the page and the line. Go ahead.

# 111 THE COURT:

26.

# 112 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes, sir. I got--

# 113 MR. SHAPIRO:

Did he testify as follows? Quote, based on the gastric contents of death, quote, was somewhere three to four hours after her last meal, end quote. Was that his testimony?

# 114 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes.

# 115 MR. SHAPIRO:

And you gave testimony that her last meal on direct examination was between 8:00 and 8:15; is that correct?

# 116 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Well, that is my understanding based on the opening and closing of the bill which was presented to me.

# 117 MR. SHAPIRO:

Based on that, Dr. Golden would place the time of death of Nicole Simpson between 11:00 o'clock and 12:30?

# 118 MR. KELBERG:

Excuse me, your Honor.

# 119 MR. SHAPIRO:

Or 11:00--

# 120 MR. KELBERG:

I'm going to object as taking out of context. Counsel can look at page 16, a specific question asked by Mr. Shapiro as to an opinion as to the time of her death.

# 121 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 122 MR. SHAPIRO:

Well, your Honor, I can't ask this question based on--he went through for two days--

# 123 THE COURT:

I understand. I understand. Both--both of you. Sustain the objection. Rephrase the question.

# 124 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you very much, your Honor.

# 125 MR. SHAPIRO:

Assuming, based on Dr. Golden's expertise that she died three to four hours after her last meal and her last meal was between 8:00 and 8:30, what would the time of death of Nicole Simpson be?

# 126 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Based on his testimony? Based on his testimony, it would reflect 11:00 to 12:30 based on his testimony and his opinion.

KEY QUOTE

# 127 MR. SHAPIRO:

Didn't Dr. Golden further testify on page 13, line 16, that on the basis of rigor mortis, the time of death was between 9 and 12 hours prior to 10:50 A.M. when it was measured?

# 128 MR. KELBERG:

I'm sorry. Can I have the question reread?

# 129 THE COURT:

13?

# 130 MR. KELBERG:

That misstates the testimony.

# 131 THE COURT:

Why don't you read it.

# 132 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 133 MR. SHAPIRO:

I'm going to refer you to line--to page 13, line 16. All right. You with me?

# 134 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Yes, sir. I'm following you.

# 135 MR. SHAPIRO:

"And then I considered the rigor mortis determination, which at the time the investigator--the time the investigator performed her determination, the body was in full rigor. If now I may pick up and look at page 1 of the Coroner's protocol, the rigor was fixed and was fully fixed. So that also placed the time of death somewhere beyond 9 to 12 hours." And assume that the investigator concluded that rigor was fully fixed at 10:50. What would the estimate be as to the time of death of Nicole Simpson?

# 136 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

Based on his testimony and based on the information he's used, the calculation for that would be that death occurred--I mean that death occurred before 10:50 P.M. it says beyond 9 to 12 hours. If you take 9 hours, it occurred before 1:50 A.M. if you take 12 hours, it occurred before 12:50--I mean 10:50 P.M. of June 13th.

# 137 MR. SHAPIRO:

Doctor, doesn't that conclude that if it's between 9 and 12 hours prior to 10:50, it would be between 10:50 P.M. and 1:50 A.M.?

# 138 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

No, no, no.

# 139 MR. KELBERG:

Excuse me. Objection. It misstates the testimony. It leaves out the word "Beyond."

# 140 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 141 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

It doesn't state that. It says beyond 9 to 12 hours. That means the death occurred before. If you use the 9-hour number, it means death occurred before 1:50 A.M. if you use the 12-hour number, it means death occurred before 10:50 P.M., which means death occurred after--before that, because as I told you yesterday, in rigor mortis, once it develops, you can't tell how long it's there until it passes away. So if that's what this testimony is, so he says in this testimony death occurred before 1:50 A.M. and if you use the 12-hours statement for fully developed, it occurred before 10:50 P.M.

# 142 MR. SHAPIRO:

What's 9 hours prior to 10:50 A.M.?

# 143 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

1:50 A.M.

# 144 MR. SHAPIRO:

What's 12 hours prior to 9:50 A.M.--prior to 10:50 A.M.?

# 145 DR. LAKSHMANAN:

10:50 P.M. of the previous day.

# 146 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you. Nothing further.

# 147 THE COURT:

Mr. Kelberg.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

From the contents, yes. What was identified grossly, that's what--so it's not a mistake in the sense that from the initial impression because I know a detailed study was done as it was done in this particular instance as you showed in the photographs. So that way, it's a mistake, yes.

Shapiro extracts a direct concession that the original stomach contents examination was incomplete — a significant blow to the reliability of the coroner's initial findings.

Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

Based on his testimony? Based on his testimony, it would reflect 11:00 to 12:30 based on his testimony and his opinion.

Establishes a time-of-death window for Nicole Simpson derived from Dr. Golden's own testimony, central to the defense timeline argument.

Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

It could be spinach. And from my gross examination, it would favor being spinach, but from--it's difficult to say more than that at this point.

Shapiro successfully forces the doctor to hedge on his initial identification, undermining the certainty of the stomach contents finding.

Robert Shapiro

A lay person would say it looks like?

Sharp rhetorical contrast — Shapiro distinguishes between expert medical certainty and lay observation, implying the doctor is testifying below the standard expected of an expert witness.

Evidence (3)

Defense 1194-A through J

Ten photographs documenting the forensic examination process of Ronald Goldman's stomach contents — container, emptied contents, spread material, and close-ups of separated vegetable fragments

introduced and examined with witness

Informal

Dr. Golden's preliminary hearing testimony, page 12 lines 26-28 (gastric contents placing death 3-4 hours after last meal) and page 13 line 16 (rigor mortis placing death beyond 9-12 hours before 10:50 AM measurement)

used to refresh recollection and establish time-of-death calculation

Informal

Coroner's protocol page 1, referenced within Dr. Golden's testimony regarding rigor mortis being fully fixed

discussed via prior testimony

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Shapiro•Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

Shapiro systematically walks the doctor through the photographs, identifying tomato skin, possible green pepper, and leafy fragments beyond the initially-reported spinach, then asks directly whether the original 'only spinach' opinion was a mistake. The doctor concedes it was.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

Shapiro presses the doctor on whether he can testify 'within a reasonable degree of medical certainty' that the vegetable is spinach, repeatedly asking yes-or-no when the doctor hedges. The doctor ultimately cannot commit to the standard.

revealing

Robert Shapiro•Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran•Brian Kelberg

Shapiro constructs a time-of-death calculation by combining Golden's gastric contents estimate with the rigor mortis data, over Kelberg's objections about mischaracterization. The doctor ultimately confirms the 10:50 PM to 1:50 AM window when Shapiro strips the math down to simple arithmetic.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Lance A. Ito

While trying to track which lettered photograph the witness was discussing, the judge gave up keeping pace.

Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

When asked to refresh his recollection from the preliminary hearing transcript, the doctor quipped: 'As I told you yesterday, it's good to refresh one's memory.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

prior inconsistent findings / inadequate methodology

Shapiro uses photographs of Goldman's stomach contents to demonstrate that the initial gross examination identified only spinach while more thorough analysis reveals additional vegetable matter including tomato skin and other fragments, extracting a concession that the initial examination was incomplete — 'a mistake.'

⚔ Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran

failure to meet expert standard

Shapiro repeatedly asks whether the doctor can identify the stomach contents 'within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,' implying that hedging language ('it looks like') falls below the standard expected of an expert witness.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — witness locates notes before answering on stomach contents

(Brief pause.) — witness locates preliminary hearing transcript page before proceeding

Witness repeatedly requests questions be repeated or rephrased, suggesting either caution or difficulty tracking Shapiro's compound questions

Witness volunteers explanation unprompted after conceding 'mistake,' attempting to contextualize the admission

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 6403 • 147 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103