Recross-examination of Brenda Vemich

📄 Recross-examination of Brenda Vemich — Thursday, June 15, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\15\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-BRENDA-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 96 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Brenda Vemich Redirect examination of Brenda Vemich (part 2) ▶

Witness: Brenda Vemich
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, June 15, 1995 • Utterances: 31

Cochran conducted a brief recross of Bloomingdale's glove buyer Brenda Vemich, focused on two strategic points: establishing that the brown extra-large Aris gloves were men's-only (not unisex), and undermining the reliability of the purchase receipt by getting Vemich to concede that if data entry clerk Miss Phipps made additional errors beyond the already-acknowledged style number mistake, her entire testimony about the glove identification would be affected.

# 1 MR. COCHRAN:

Just a couple other questions, yes.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to these gloves, Miss Vemich, these gloves are sold only for men; is that correct?

# 3 MS. VEMICH:

Yes.

# 4 MR. COCHRAN:

These are not unisex gloves, are they?

# 5 MS. VEMICH:

No.

# 6 MR. COCHRAN:

Would you agree a person who was wearing a pair of gloves could best determine whether or not those gloves were fitting appropriately? Isn't that kind of a personal thing?

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MS. VEMICH:

Sure.

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

Because as a buyer the customer is always right, isn't he?

# 9 MS. VEMICH:

Sure.

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

If the customer told you those gloves were too small for him, you would accept that, wouldn't you?

# 11 MS. VEMICH:

If you wanted to buy them, I would not tell you.

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

You wouldn't quarrel, would you?

# 13 MS. VEMICH:

No. I can give my opinion.

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

All right. Well, thank you. Now, with regard to the actual numbers of gloves sold, I believe you told us that your general estimate would be that approximately 200 of the 300 pairs were sold during this particular fall period, right?

# 15 MS. VEMICH:

I said 300 were purchased, approximately, in brown extra large.

# 16 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes.

# 17 MS. VEMICH:

About 200 were sold.

# 18 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes, that is what I said, 200 were sold, right. Would the other hundred later be sold at a later time or what would happen?

# 19 MS. VEMICH:

They would be returned to the vendor.

# 20 MR. COCHRAN:

You have no record as to what number was actually returned to the vendor?

# 21 MS. VEMICH:

No.

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to the receipt that Mr. Darden just placed up there again, with regard who how you are able to identify any of the information, it boils down to the correct inputting by Miss Phipps as to those various numbers; isn't that correct?

# 23 MS. VEMICH:

Yes.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

If she is wrong about some other number about the vendor and she was wrong about the style number, that would affect what you are telling us; isn't that correct, ma'am?

# 25 MS. VEMICH:

It wasn't only the style number that determined--made me believe that this was an Aris leather light. It was all the other combinations. It was the class number and it was the retail number.

KEY QUOTE

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

Let me get back to my question. My question was if she was wrong about other numbers entered there manually, as she was with the style number, that would affect the information that you have given us here today; isn't that correct, ma'am?

# 27 MS. VEMICH:

Yes, it could have.

# 28 MR. COCHRAN:

That is one of the reasons why Bloomingdales and other modern stores have now gone to the bar coding effect so you take out the aspect of human error; is that correct?

KEY QUOTE

# 29 MS. VEMICH:

Sure.

# 30 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you very kindly.

# 31 THE COURT:

Mr. Darden, anything further?

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Brenda Vemich

Yes, it could have.

Vemich concedes that additional data-entry errors by Miss Phipps — beyond the already-acknowledged style number error — could undermine the evidentiary value of the receipt she used to identify the gloves.

Johnnie Cochran

Would you agree a person who was wearing a pair of gloves could best determine whether or not those gloves were fitting appropriately? Isn't that kind of a personal thing?

Cochran plants the seed that OJ himself — not a retail buyer — is the authoritative judge of whether the gloves fit, laying groundwork for the 'if it doesn't fit' argument.

Brenda Vemich

It wasn't only the style number that determined--made me believe that this was an Aris leather light. It was all the other combinations. It was the class number and it was the retail number.

Vemich pushes back on Cochran's impeachment attempt, arguing the identification rested on multiple corroborating data points, not just the erroneous style number.

Johnnie Cochran

That is one of the reasons why Bloomingdales and other modern stores have now gone to the bar coding effect so you take out the aspect of human error; is that correct?

Cochran ends with a rhetorical flourish that reframes the entire receipt as a product of an error-prone manual system, implicitly discrediting it to the jury.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Bloomingdale's purchase receipt for brown extra-large Aris Leather Light gloves, previously introduced by Darden

discussed, challenged for data-entry reliability

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Brenda Vemich

Cochran walks Vemich through the logic that if Miss Phipps was wrong about the style number (already established), she could have been wrong about other manually-entered numbers too, and Vemich ultimately concedes this 'could have' affected her testimony.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Brenda Vemich

Cochran establishes that the wearer of gloves is the best judge of fit and that Vemich as a retailer would not contradict a customer who said gloves were too small — setting up the jury to view OJ's courtroom glove demonstration as authoritative.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Brenda Vemich

prior inconsistent data / third-party error

Cochran leveraged the already-established fact that data entry clerk Miss Phipps had made at least one error (style number) to suggest the entire manually-entered receipt was unreliable, getting Vemich to concede that additional errors 'could have' compromised her identification testimony.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 6414 • 31 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103