Cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman (morning, part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman (morning, part 1) — Monday, March 13, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\13\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-MARK-FUHR.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 36 of 167

◀ Motion: prior incidents evidence Sidebar ▶

Witness: Det. Mark Fuhrman
Examiner: F. Lee Bailey
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 13, 1995 • Utterances: 350

F. Lee Bailey begins his cross-examination of Detective Mark Fuhrman, methodically establishing Fuhrman's educational background, LAPD training, and prior connections to O.J. Simpson. Bailey lays groundwork by walking through Fuhrman's military service, detective schooling, and homicide experience before pivoting to Fuhrman's 1985 encounter with Simpson and a 1989 letter Fuhrman wrote describing the incident as 'indelibly pressed' into his memory due to Simpson's celebrity status. The session is slow-burn and strategic, with Bailey clearly building toward a larger credibility attack.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

# 2 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS REAPPROACHING THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

# 3 DET. MARK FUHRMAN:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 4 THE COURT:

MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY COMMENCE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

# 5

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 6

BY MR. BAILEY:

# 7 Q:

GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

# 8 A:

GOOD MORNING, MR. BAILEY.

# 9 Q:

COULD YOU TELL US WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU WERE ENLIGHTENED AS TO THE FACT THAT THE PLASTIC YOU SAW IN MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO COMES WITH THE CAR, WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT?

# 10 A:

YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS SATURDAY.

# 11 Q:

SATURDAY.

# 12 A:

YES.

# 13 Q:

SO THAT AFTER NINE MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, YOU DISCOVERED ON SATURDAY THAT THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS PERFECTLY INNOCUOUS; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 14 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 15 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 16 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE SHOVEL IN MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO, DID YOU THINK THAT A SIGNIFICANT FIND?

# 17 A:

I DON'T THINK "SIGNIFICANT" WAS THE WORD I WOULD USE.

# 18 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN DIGGING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

# 19 A:

YES, SIR.

# 20 Q:

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KIND OF SHOVEL USED TO DIG A HOLE AND THE KIND OF SHOVEL YOU MIGHT USE AS A SCOOPER FOR INSTANCE?

# 21 A:

YES, I DO.

# 22 Q:

OKAY. AND WHAT KIND OF SHOVEL IS THIS?

# 23 A:

WELL, THAT'S THE TYPE OF SHOVEL YOU USE TO MUCK A BARN.

# 24 Q:

OR SCOOP OUT DOGGIE-DO MAYBE?

KEY QUOTE

# 25 A:

IT'S A LITTLE LARGE FOR THAT, BUT I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN.

# 26 Q:

IT WOULD WORK, WOULDN'T IT?

# 27 A:

YES, SIR.

# 28 Q:

OKAY. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR COLLEAGUES, DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE, ON THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 1994 HAD A TOTAL OF SOME THREE HOURS IN THE COMPANY OF MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT? DID YOU LEARN THAT?

# 29 A:

I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT TIME, NO.

# 30 Q:

YOU KNOW THEY TALKED THOUGH?

# 31 A:

YES, I UNDERSTAND.

# 32 Q:

YOU KNOW THAT PART OF WHAT THEY EXCHANGED --

# 33 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION.

# 34 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: -- WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS TAPED, DON'T YOU?

# 35 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE, HEARSAY.

# 36 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. THE FACT THERE WAS -- THEY HAD A TAPED CONVERSATION IS A FACT. IT'S NOT CONTACT.

# 37 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: PART WAS TAPED, PART WAS NOT. WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

# 38 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 39 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. THAT'S ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 40 MR. BAILEY:

OKAY.

# 41 MS. CLARK:

BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 42 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU KNOW IF A FORMAL STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AT SOME POINT ON THAT DAY, JUST YES OR NO?

# 43 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. WOULD BE SPECULATION. THIS WITNESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

# 44 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

# 45 DET. MARK FUHRMAN:

I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THROUGH OTHER SOURCES, I ASSUMED AND I HEARD, BUT I HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING OR HEARD ANYTHING.

# 46 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: YOU NEVER TALKED TO DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE ABOUT WHAT THE SUSPECT HAD SAID DURING THREE HOURS OF CONVERSATION?

# 47 A:

NO, I DIDN'T.

# 48 Q:

NEVER DID?

# 49 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION.

# 50 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT. MR. BAILEY -- HOLD ON. BE CAREFUL, MR. BAILEY. PROCEED.

# 51 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU EVER LEARN IF MR. SIMPSON WAS EVER ASKED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A SHOVEL?

# 52 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. THAT'S HEARSAY.

# 53 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER ASK MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A SHOVEL?

# 54 A:

I NEVER ASKED --

# 55 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. ASSUMES HE EVER ASKED ANYTHING.

# 56 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 57 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU?

# 58 A:

I'VE NEVER ASKED MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS.

# 59 Q:

OKAY. WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, SOME OF YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, THAT SORT OF THING?

# 60 A:

I WENT TO PENINSULA HIGH SCHOOL. I DID NOT COMPLETE. I GOT A GED. I PROBABLY GOT --

# 61 Q:

A GED IS?

# 62 A:

GENERAL EDUCATION, EQUIVALENCY DIPLOMA.

# 63 Q:

UH-HUH.

# 64 A:

I ATTENDED ONE, TWO, THREE COMMUNITY COLLEGES I BELIEVE. I CURRENTLY HOLD APPROXIMATELY 47 UNITS OF COLLEGE.

# 65 Q:

WHAT WOULD THAT BE IN YEARS?

# 66 A:

CLOSE TO TWO YEARS.

# 67 Q:

AND WHAT DID YOU STUDY?

# 68 A:

HISTORY, POLICE SCIENCE, ART.

# 69 Q:

OKAY. AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY OTHER EDUCATION BEYOND THESE COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXPERIENCES?

# 70 A:

ARE YOU SAYING FORMAL EDUCATION, SIR, THAT I SOUGHT OUT?

# 71 Q:

WELL, TRAINING COURSES, ANYTHING THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS INSTRUCTION.

# 72 A:

OH, YES. NUMEROUS -- NUMEROUS COURSES.

# 73 Q:

DID YOU SERVE FOR A TIME IN THE MILITARY?

# 74 A:

YES.

# 75 Q:

WHEN?

# 76 A:

1970 TO '72, '73 TO '75.

# 77 Q:

IN WHAT BRANCH?

# 78 A:

MARINE CORPS.

# 79 Q:

RESERVE?

# 80 A:

NO. ACTIVE DUTY.

# 81 Q:

WERE YOU A REGULAR OR RESERVE?

# 82 A:

YES. REGULAR, SIR.

# 83 Q:

OKAY. AND WHAT RANK DID YOU ATTAIN?

# 84 A:

E-5, SERGEANT.

# 85 Q:

AND WHAT IF ANY EDUCATIONAL COURSES DID YOU TAKE IN THE MILITARY?

# 86 A:

EXCEPT FOR YOUR BASIC M.O.S. TRAINING, I DON'T BELIEVE I ATTENDED ANY COURSES.

# 87 Q:

OKAY. AND M.O.S. MEANS MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY?

# 88 A:

YES, SIR.

# 89 Q:

WHAT WAS YOURS?

# 90 A:

PRIMARY, MACHINE GUNNER, SECONDARY, MILITARY POLICEMAN.

# 91 Q:

NOW, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MILITARY POLICE SPECIALTY, SOME TRAINING IS REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE THAT; IS THAT NOT TRUE?

# 92 A:

WELL, NOT REALLY. IT'S MORE OF AN ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING TYPE. YOU START OFF AS A GATE SENTRY AND THEN YOU WORK FROM THERE. IF YOU HAVE AN APTITUDE, THEY'LL ELEVATE YOU.

# 93 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT ROLE OF A MILITARY POLICEMAN DID YOU PLAY? WAS IT TANTAMOUNT TO BEING A PATROLMAN OR A GATE SENTRY OR WAS IT MORE LIKE A DETECTIVE?

# 94 A:

WELL, IT STARTED OUT AS A GATE SENTRY AND THEN I WENT TO PATROL, AND AT SOME POINT, I WORKED WITH CID ON A COUPLE THINGS, BUT THEY WERE NOT --

# 95 Q:

CID STANDS FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; DOES IT NOT?

# 96 A:

YES.

# 97 Q:

OKAY. AND WHAT KINDS OF CASES DID YOU WORK ON WITH THEM?

# 98 A:

ONLY ONE. I POSED AS A PRIVATE -- EXCUSE ME -- AWAITING TO GET OUT OF THE SERVICE WHERE THEY HAD A NARCOTICS PROBLEM, AND MY ROLE WAS JUST TO PLAY CARDS WITH THEM AND SEE IF I COULD ELICIT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT A HASHISH CONNECTION THAT THEY WERE SUSPECTED OF BEING INVOLVED IN.

# 99 Q:

YOU WERE UNDERCOVER AT THE TIME?

# 100 A:

WELL, SOMEWHAT.

# 101 Q:

PLAYING A ROLE.

# 102 A:

YES, I WAS PLAYING A ROLE.

# 103 Q:

OKAY. AND WAS THAT YOUR ONLY NEXUS TO ANY MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS OF SUSPECTED CRIMES WHILE YOU WERE IN THE MARINE CORPS?

# 104 A:

NO. I INVESTIGATED CRIMES AS A PATROLMAN.

# 105 Q:

OKAY. EVER INVESTIGATE ANY HOMICIDE?

# 106 A:

NO.

# 107 Q:

EVER ATTEND ANY COURSES IN INVESTIGATION, HOW IT SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED?

# 108 A:

NO, SIR.

# 109 Q:

OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE DISCHARGED FROM THE MARINE CORPS, WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?

# 110 A:

I JOINED THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

# 111 Q:

ALL RIGHT. HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? CAN YOU TELL US?

# 112 A:

I APPLIED FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I WENT TO LOS ANGELES I BELIEVE THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, TOOK THE REQUIRED TESTS AND I HAD AN ACADEMY DATE APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE TO WHEN I WAS -- WHEN I EXITED THE MARINE CORPS.

# 113 Q:

I TAKE IT THAT YOU PASSED THE TEST?

# 114 A:

YES, SIR.

# 115 Q:

AND HOW LONG AFTER YOUR APPLICATION WERE YOU FORMALLY INDUCTED INTO THE POLICE ACADEMY?

# 116 A:

I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHEN I APPLIED. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1975, BUT SHORTLY AFTER MY E.A.S. OR MY END OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

# 117 Q:

I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN.

# 118 A:

END OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

# 119 Q:

THAT'S E.A.S. IS IT?

# 120 A:

E.A.S. THEN I ENTERED THE ACADEMY ON AUGUST 4TH, 1975.

# 121 Q:

THEN YOU HAD PLANNED TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 122 A:

YES.

# 123 Q:

ALL RIGHT, SIR. HOW LONG DOES THAT ACADEMY LAST?

# 124 A:

I BELIEVE IT LASTED FIVE MONTHS AT THAT TIME. I BELIEVE I GRADUATED JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS 1975.

# 125 Q:

AND WHAT KINDS OF COURSES DID YOU TAKE THERE?

# 126 A:

IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT YOUR BASIC -- SPLIT UP INTO THREE AREAS. YOU HAVE SHOOTING, PHYSICAL FITNESS AND THEN ACADEMICS, AND ACADEMICS, IT WENT FROM EVERYTHING TO TRAFFIC CITATIONS TO TACTICAL SITUATIONS TO YOUR INVESTIGATORY RESPONSIBILITIES ON CRIME SCENES TO TAKING CRIME REPORTS, ENGLISH.

# 127 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU WENT TO THE ACADEMY WITH A VIEW TOWARD GRADUATING AND BECOMING A PATROLMAN?

# 128 A:

YES, SIR.

# 129 Q:

IS THERE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD DURING WHICH YOU CAN BE DISCHARGED WITHOUT ANY CAUSE AFTER YOU GRADUATE?

# 130 A:

YES.

# 131 Q:

HOW LONG IS THAT?

# 132 A:

I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX MONTHS THEN.

# 133 Q:

OKAY. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU LEARNED IN THE TACTICAL END OF THINGS AT THE ACADEMY.

# 134 A:

WELL, THAT WAS -- THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. OFFICER SAFETY WAS STRESSED QUITE --

# 135 Q:

WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF OFFICER SAFETY THAT STICK IN YOUR MIND FROM THAT EXPERIENCE?

# 136 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

# 137 THE COURT:

SOME LATITUDE HERE, MR. BAILEY.

# 138 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THE --

# 139 A:

THE FOREMOST?

# 140 Q:

-- PARTICULAR -- THE FOREMOST.

# 141 A:

THE HANDS CAN KILL YOU, THE EYES CAN'T.

KEY QUOTE

# 142 Q:

OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT PROTECTING YOUR BACK?

# 143 A:

OH, ABSOLUTELY.

# 144 Q:

WHEN THERE IS DANGER, NORMALLY OFFICERS GO OUT IN PAIRS TO LOOK OUT AFTER ONE ANOTHER; DO THEY NOT?

# 145 A:

THAT'S PREFERRED.

# 146 Q:

AND WAS THAT NOT A PRINCIPLE THAT YOU HAD LEARNED IN FACT IN THE MARINE CORPS?

# 147 A:

YES.

# 148 Q:

OKAY. NOW, DID YOU TAKE ANY OTHER COURSES COURTESY OF THE LAPD OR AT ITS REQUEST PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE?

# 149 A:

YES, SIR.

# 150 Q:

CAN YOU TELL ME JUST GENERALLY WHAT KINDS THEY WERE?

# 151 A:

YES. DETECTIVE SCHOOL, HOMICIDE -- IT WAS A COMBINED DETECTIVE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL AND THAT YEAR I BELIEVE IT WAS --

# 152 Q:

THAT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF THE UPGRADE?

# 153 A:

NO.

# 154 Q:

OKAY. WHEN DID YOU FIRST GO TO DETECTIVE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO LEARN.

# 155 A:

THE FIRST TIME WAS IN 1983.

# 156 Q:

AND DID YOU COMPLETE THAT COURSE?

# 157 A:

YES.

# 158 Q:

HOW LONG WAS IT?

# 159 A:

THREE WEEKS.

# 160 Q:

AND DID YOU LEARN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF DETECTION, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO HOMICIDE CASES?

# 161 A:

YES. IN A GENERAL BASIS, YES.

# 162 Q:

OKAY. DID YOU HAVE COURSES IN THE FIREARMS -- FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION?

# 163 A:

ARE YOU TALKING BALLISTICS OR THE FORENSICS?

# 164 Q:

WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT MOST PEOPLE INCORRECTLY CALL BALLISTICS, WHICH IS BULLETS PROJECTORY. I'M TALKING ABOUT FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION, WHICH MEANS MATCHING A WEAPON TO A PROJECTORY. DID YOU HAVE ANY COURSES IN THAT?

# 165 A:

THE CLASS WOULD BE WHAT YOUR CRIMINALISTS COULD DO FOR YOU, NOT YOUR -- YOUR INVOLVEMENT.

# 166 Q:

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT FINGERPRINTS?

# 167 A:

YES.

# 168 Q:

FOOTPRINTS?

# 169 A:

YES.

# 170 Q:

BLOOD PATTERNS, SPATTERS?

# 171 A:

YES.

# 172 Q:

ALL RIGHT. PROTECTION OF THE CRIME SCENE?

# 173 A:

YES.

# 174 Q:

PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE?

# 175 A:

YES.

# 176 Q:

AND DID YOU ALSO LEARN THAT DELAY AFTER DISCOVERY OF A CRIME IS GENERALLY THE ENEMY OF DETECTION?

# 177 A:

I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

# 178 Q:

YOU DON'T RECALL THAT LESSON?

# 179 A:

NO.

# 180 Q:

WELL, DID PEOPLE TELL YOU THAT -- FOR INSTANCE, WITH RESPECT TO HOMICIDE VICTIMS, THAT BODIES BEGIN TO DETERIORATE AFTER THEY'RE DEAD?

# 181 A:

YES.

# 182 Q:

CHANGES TAKE PLACE?

# 183 A:

YES, SIR.

# 184 Q:

ALL RIGHT. THAT INSECT AND PLANT LIFE MAY INFECT PORTIONS OF THE CRIME SCENE; DID YOU LEARN THAT?

# 185 A:

YES.

# 186 Q:

OKAY. AS I UNDERSTOOD YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, YOU ESTIMATE THAT AS A PATROLMAN AND DETECTIVE COMBINED, YOU'VE BEEN AT 150 TO 250 HOMICIDE SCENES; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 187 A:

YES, SIR.

# 188 Q:

AND THAT AS LEAD DETECTIVE, ONCE YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE, YOU HAVE HAD FIVE INVESTIGATIONS WHERE HOMICIDE WAS THE CRIME?

# 189 A:

YES, SIR.

# 190 Q:

AND 10 MORE WHERE YOU WERE WITH ANOTHER DETECTIVE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO CONVEY?

# 191 A:

I THINK TOTAL WOULD BE TO PROBABLY FIVE MORE WHERE I WAS ACCOMPANIED AS A SECONDARY OR --

# 192 Q:

SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THAT YOU MAINTAINED THE LEAD OR FOR YOU AT LEAST THE 11TH HOMICIDE CASE?

# 193 A:

YES, AS ONE OF THE --

# 194 Q:

AS A DETECTIVE?

# 195 A:

YES, SIR.

# 196 Q:

AND WAS THIS THE FIRST DOUBLE HOMICIDE?

# 197 A:

OF THIS NATURE, YES.

# 198 Q:

NOW, AT WHAT GRADE DID YOU BEGIN YOUR DETECTIVE WORK?

# 199 A:

RANK, SIR? D-1 OR DETECTIVE 1.

# 200 Q:

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE IN FACT THREE GRADES OF DETECTIVES IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

# 201 A:

YES, THERE IS.

# 202 Q:

AND YOU AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT HAD BECOME A DETECTIVE, SECOND RANK?

# 203 A:

YES. DETECTIVE 2.

# 204 Q:

AND DETECTIVES PHILLIPS, LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE ALL OF THE 3RD RANK AT THAT TIME; WERE THEY NOT?

# 205 A:

YES, SIR.

# 206 Q:

OKAY. WHEN YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE, DID YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COURSES IN INVESTIGATION AND PARTICULARLY HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

# 207 A:

I DID ATTEND DETECTIVE SCHOOL ONCE MORE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL.

# 208 Q:

WHAT HAPPENED IN '83? WERE THERE NO OPENINGS OR YOU DIDN'T GET PROMOTED TO DETECTIVE AT THIS TIME?

# 209 A:

I HADN'T TAKEN THE TEST, SIR.

# 210 Q:

WHAT'S THAT?

# 211 A:

I HADN'T TAKEN THE TEST.

# 212 Q:

YOU TOOK THE COURSE IN '83 BUT DIDN'T TAKE THE TEST?

# 213 A:

YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

# 214 Q:

I SEE. WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE THE TEST IF YOU REMEMBER?

# 215 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

# 216 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

# 217 DET. MARK FUHRMAN:

NO REASON. I HAD A FRIEND THAT SAID, "YOU WANT TO GO TO DETECTIVE SCHOOL," AND I SAID, "SURE."

# 218 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. SO YOU WERE KIND OF AUDITING RATHER THAN BEING ENROLLED. IS THAT YOUR POSTURE?

# 219 A:

NO. I WAS LEARNING.

# 220 Q:

OKAY. DID YOU GO TO PRECISELY THE SAME SCHOOL OR SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ONE WHEN YOU FORMALLY TOOK THE DETECTIVE'S EXAM OR PRIOR THERETO?

# 221 A:

WELL, I THINK THE SCHOOL CHANGED SOMEWHAT. THEY SPLIT HOMICIDE AND DETECTIVE SCHOOL.

# 222 Q:

UH-HUH.

# 223 A:

I FIRST ATTENDED DETECTIVE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS TWO WEEKS, AND THEN LATER I ATTENDED HOMICIDE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS ONE WEEK.

# 224 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT YEAR WAS THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

# 225 A:

I BELIEVE DETECTIVE SCHOOL WAS 19 -- COULD HAVE BEEN '89. I'M THINKING MORE LIKE 1990, AND I BELIEVE HOMICIDE SCHOOL, 1991.

# 226 Q:

DO YOU RECALL NOW THE SUBJECTS THAT WERE TAUGHT TO YOU IN THE 1991 HOMICIDE SCHOOL?

# 227 A:

WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER THEM ALL, NO.

# 228 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S REVIEW WHAT WE CAN. DID ANYONE TELL YOU AT THIS TIME THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT DELAYS IN THE INVESTIGATION IN HOMICIDE CASES?

# 229 A:

I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY PHRASE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BODIES OF THE SCENE IN THAT WAY.

# 230 Q:

WELL, YOU'VE HEARD IT NOW. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAS EVER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THAT'S A PRINCIPLE?

# 231 A:

WELL, THE WAY THAT THAT'S PHRASED, YES.

# 232 Q:

OKAY. YOU TELL US THEN THAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT, THE LAPSE OF TIME IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SUCCESS OF A HOMICIDE CASE?

# 233 A:

NO. NOT AT ALL.

# 234 Q:

WELL, DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO BODIES WHEN YOU WENT IN 1991?

# 235 A:

YES, SIR.

# 236 Q:

DID YOU LEARN ABOUT TEMPERATURE LOSS?

# 237 A:

YES.

# 238 Q:

POST-MORTEM LIVIDITY?

# 239 A:

YES.

# 240 Q:

RIGOR MORTIS?

# 241 A:

YES.

# 242 Q:

STOMACH CONTENTS AND THEIR POSSIBLE DETERIORATION?

# 243 A:

YES.

# 244 Q:

CONTAMINATION BY INSECT AND PLANT MATERIAL?

# 245 A:

YES, SIR.

# 246 Q:

AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE AT THE SCENE, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S CROWDED, MAY CONTAMINATE THE AREA?

# 247 A:

YES, SIR.

# 248 Q:

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 249 A:

YES.

# 250 Q:

DID YOU LEARN THE MANNER IN WHICH TIME OF DEATH CAN IN SOME CASES BE ASCERTAINED IN HOMICIDE CASES?

# 251 A:

YES. THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS.

# 252 Q:

AND WHAT FACTORS DID YOU LEARN ARE RELEVANT TO ESTABLISHING THE PERIMETERS OF THE TIME OF DEATH?

# 253 A:

I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT EXACTLY ASKED, SIR.

# 254 Q:

NO DOCTOR CAN EVER SAY THIS VICTIM DIED AT 32 AND A HALF MINUTES PAST THE HOUR. IT'S NOT THAT PRECISE, IS IT? NO CORONER CAN SAY THAT, CAN THEY?

# 255 A:

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

# 256 Q:

OKAY. SO NORMALLY, THE TIME IS BRACKETED BY THE CORONER, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 10:00, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00, WHATEVER, CORRECT?

# 257 A:

YES.

# 258 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT GENERALLY TRUE THAT THE LONGER IT TAKES TO GET TO AN AUTOPSY, THE BROADER THE RANGE OF THE CORONER'S OPINION?

# 259 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HOW WOULD HE KNOW? SPECULATION.

# 260 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 261 MR. BAILEY:

IF HE KNOWS.

# 262 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 263 DET. MARK FUHRMAN:

I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD TO REALLY ANSWER. I THINK EVERY SCENE WOULD BE UNIQUE TO ITSELF. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD ANSWER THAT.

# 264 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: IN HOW MANY HOMICIDE CASES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AS A DETECTIVE, WHICH I TAKE IT IS NOW 11, HAS TIME OF DEATH BEEN AN IMPORTANT QUESTION?

# 265 A:

I COULDN'T SAY, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT NOT ALL OF THEM.

# 266 Q:

NOT ALL OF THEM. HALF?

# 267 A:

I COULDN'T SAY, SIR. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE HOMICIDES AT THE FOREFRONT OF MY MEMORY RIGHT NOW.

# 268 Q:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MEMORY OF THE OTHER 10 CASES?

# 269 A:

WELL, I DO, BUT RIGHT NOW, I'M CONCENTRATING ON THIS.

# 270 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE A MOMENT TO REFLECT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD EVER HAD OCCASION IN THE PAST PRIOR TO THIS CASE TO WANT TO ASCERTAIN THE TIME OF DEATH OF THE VICTIMS?

# 271 A:

YES. I CAN SAY YES.

# 272 Q:

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AT ALL OF HOW MANY DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THAT WAS A NECESSARY PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

# 273 A:

IF I COULD HAVE A MOMENT TO THINK.

# 274 Q:

SURE.

# 275 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 276 DET. MARK FUHRMAN:

I CAN THINK OF ONE THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

# 277 Q:

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE TIME OF DEATH CAN DEFINE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE POTENTIAL SUSPECTS IN A CASE?

# 278 A:

I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL.

# 279 Q:

AND IT CAN ALSO ELIMINATE PERSONS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE SUSPECTS IN THE CASE; CAN IT NOT?

# 280 A:

I'M SURE IT COULD, YES.

# 281 Q:

NOW, IN THIS CASE, DO YOU REGARD THE TIME OF DEATH OF THE VICTIMS AS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR?

# 282 A:

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE ON THIS CASE.

# 283 Q:

YOU DON'T. OKAY. WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED MR. SIMPSON AND THE WOMAN YOU NOW KNOW TO BE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN 1985, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BECAUSE YOU PREFER BASKETBALL OVER FOOTBALL, BUT STILL LIKE FOOTBALL, YOU KNEW WHO HE WAS AS YOU WALKED UP?

# 284 A:

AS I GOT CLOSE, I SAW WHO HE WAS, YES.

# 285 Q:

HAD YOU EVER SEEN HER BEFORE?

# 286 A:

NO.

# 287 Q:

DID YOU EVER SEE HER AGAIN UP TO THE TIME OF HER DEATH?

# 288 A:

NO, SIR.

# 289 Q:

WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE, DID YOU HAVE ANY POWER TO PAT DOWN ANYBODY THERE? WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE POLICE CONDUCT?

# 290 A:

WHICH SCENE IS THIS, SIR?

# 291 Q:

'85, THE MERCEDES.

# 292 A:

OH, I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE, YES.

# 293 Q:

WELL, MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON HIM OR IN HIS HANDS RESEMBLING A WEAPON, DID HE?

# 294 A:

NO.

# 295 Q:

NO. WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS THAT YOU WOULD WALK ON A PERSON'S LAND AND PAT THEM DOWN? DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT?

# 296 A:

AT SOME POINT YOU DO.

# 297 Q:

AND DID YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO ARREST HIM?

# 298 A:

OH, NO, I DIDN'T.

# 299 Q:

SO WHEN MISS CLARK ASKED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION COULD YOU HAVE ARRESTED HIM, YOUR ANSWER WAS WHAT?

# 300 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID I COULD HAVE ARRESTED HIM, NO.

# 301 Q:

THANK YOU. IN 1989, HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT WHAT YOU HAD OBSERVED IN 1985 MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THE CITY SOLICITOR OR PROSECUTOR? HOW DID YOU FIRST LEARN ABOUT THAT?

# 302 A:

WELL, THE ONE AND ONLY TIME I LEARNED, I WAS STANDING IN FRONT OF THE DESK OF DETECTIVE SERGEANT GLEN VARNER, WHO I WAS TALKING WITH EARLIER IN THE MORNING, HAVING A CUP OF COFFEE AND --

# 303 Q:

CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENED?

# 304 A:

I AM SORRY?

# 305 Q:

CAN YOU RELATE THIS TO THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO THE CITY SOLICITOR WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SEEN?

# 306 A:

JUST PRIOR TO WRITING THE LETTER.

# 307 Q:

OKAY. DETECTIVE VARNER SAID SOMETHING TO YOU AS --

# 308 A:

NO. NO, HE DIDN'T, SIR.

# 309 Q:

GO AHEAD.

# 310 A:

DETECTIVE MIKE FARRELL CAME TO DETECTIVE SERGEANT VARNER, WHO WAS HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR, AND DISCUSSED THE CASE, THE '89 CASE INVOLVING MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON.

# 311 Q:

OKAY. AND DID YOU THEN VOLUNTEER THE FACT THAT YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED THEM FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THAT?

# 312 A:

NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

# 313 Q:

BUT AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU ASKED WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD, IF REQUESTED TO DO SO, GIVE SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT?

# 314 A:

NO. I OVERHEARD DETECTIVE FARRELL INFORMING DETECTIVE VARNER THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANYBODY THAT HAD BEEN UP THERE THAT DIDN'T TAKE A REPORT TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURT.

# 315 Q:

FINE. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU DID NOT MAKE A REPORT IN THAT CASE. AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, THAT'S BECAUSE YOU WERE DRIVING THE PATROL VEHICLE AND YOUR PARTNER WAS RIDING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT AND REPORTS WERE HIS RESPONSIBILITY; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 316 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 317 Q:

OKAY. YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, YOU WOULD HAVE REPORTED SOMETHING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

# 318 A:

NO. THERE WAS NO REPORT TO BE TAKEN.

# 319 Q:

THERE WASN'T ANY REASON TO MAKE A REPORT, WAS THERE, DETECTIVE?

# 320 A:

NO, SIR. NO, SIR.

# 321 Q:

BUT IN 1989, YOU FOUND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS INTERESTED IN THAT INCIDENT OR ANY PRIOR INCIDENT BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE, CORRECT?

# 322 A:

THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, YES.

# 323 Q:

AS A RESULT OF WHICH, YOU WROTE HIM A LETTER SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CELEBRITY STATUS OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON, THE MATTER WAS INDELIBLY PRESSED INTO YOUR MEMORY, TRUE?

KEY QUOTE

# 324 A:

YES, SIR.

# 325 Q:

THE KIND OF THING YOU WON'T FORGET FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIVE; FAIR STATEMENT?

# 326 A:

SEEING MR. SIMPSON, YES.

# 327 Q:

YEAH. WELL, AND THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE, TO BE ON HIS PROPERTY.

# 328 A:

YES, SIR.

# 329 Q:

OKAY. AND HAD THE CASE GONE TO TRIAL INSTEAD OF BEING RESOLVED AS IT WAS, YOU WERE PREPARED TO GO AND TESTIFY TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR LETTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 330 A:

I WASN'T TOLD THAT AND I DIDN'T ASSUME THAT, NO.

# 331 Q:

WERE YOU PREPARED TO IF SOMEBODY HAD ASKED YOU TO?

# 332 A:

OH, I THINK I WOULD HAVE -- OBVIOUSLY I WOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO A SUBPOENA.

# 333 Q:

NOW, IN 1994, AT 1:05 A.M., WHILE YOU WERE SOUND ASLEEP, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, CORRECT?

# 334 A:

YES, SIR.

# 335 Q:

HAD YOU SEEN MR. O.J. SIMPSON PERSONALLY BETWEEN 1985 AND JUNE OF 1994?

# 336 A:

NO, SIR.

# 337 Q:

MR. PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE IN BRENTWOOD AND THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS MIGHT WELL BE THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON; DID HE NOT?

# 338 A:

YES, SIR.

# 339 Q:

DID THAT BRING TO YOUR MIND YOUR PRIOR ASSOCIATION WITH THE SIMPSON'S IN 1985 AS AN INVESTIGATING PATROLMAN AND AS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN 1989? DID YOU REMEMBER THOSE THINGS?

# 340 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE I EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT MUCH AT THE TIME.

# 341 Q:

SO I TAKE IT THAT THE INDELIBLE PRESS THAT WAS IN YOUR MIND IN 1989 HAD FADED TO A DEGREE?

KEY QUOTE

# 342 A:

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I WAS GOING TO A HOMICIDE SCENE. I WAS MOSTLY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE A DOUBLE HOMICIDE SCENE AND WHO WAS GETTING CALLED IN.

# 343 Q:

HADN'T PHILLIPS EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAD GOTTEN, THIS WAS A SPECIAL CASE BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS?

# 344 A:

NO, HE NEVER VERBALIZED THAT.

# 345 Q:

HAD YOU LEARNED FROM HIM DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT THE COMMANDER WISHED TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON PERSONALLY NOTIFIED AS OPPOSED TO TELEPHONIC NOTIFICATION?

# 346 A:

I BELIEVE I LEARNED THAT WHEN WE WERE EN ROUTE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

# 347 Q:

OKAY. NOW, FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THIS PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU AROSE, I TAKE IT SHOWERED AND CLEANED UP, ET CETERA, AND DROVE IN YOUR CAR TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION, RIGHT?

# 348 A:

YES, SIR.

# 349 Q:

AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU AT THAT HOUR OF THE MORNING, ASSUME TRAFFIC IS RATHER LIGHT, TO DRIVE IN FROM REDONDO BEACH?

# 350 A:

IT'S FAIRLY QUICK. PROBABLY 20 TO 25 MINUTES.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Mark Fuhrman

THE HANDS CAN KILL YOU, THE EYES CAN'T.

Fuhrman's recitation of the foremost principle of officer safety from academy training — a memorable line that also subtly reinforces his self-presentation as a seasoned professional.

F. Lee Bailey

AS A RESULT OF WHICH, YOU WROTE HIM A LETTER SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CELEBRITY STATUS OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON, THE MATTER WAS INDELIBLY PRESSED INTO YOUR MEMORY, TRUE?

Bailey pins down Fuhrman's own words from the 1989 letter — establishing that Fuhrman had a heightened, celebrity-driven awareness of Simpson before the murder investigation, which Bailey will use to imply bias or motive.

Mark Fuhrman

I WAS GOING TO A HOMICIDE SCENE. I WAS MOSTLY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE A DOUBLE HOMICIDE SCENE AND WHO WAS GETTING CALLED IN.

Fuhrman pushes back on Bailey's suggestion that his prior Simpson connection was on his mind when he was called to the scene — directly contradicting the implication that he arrived with a personal agenda.

F. Lee Bailey

SO I TAKE IT THAT THE INDELIBLE PRESS THAT WAS IN YOUR MIND IN 1989 HAD FADED TO A DEGREE?

Bailey uses Fuhrman's own prior language to create an apparent contradiction: either the memory was truly indelible (and influenced his conduct) or he is overstating his 1989 letter.

F. Lee Bailey

OR SCOOP OUT DOGGIE-DO MAYBE?

Brief moment of levity deflating the prosecution's implication that the shovel in Simpson's Bronco was sinister — Fuhrman acknowledges the shovel was too large but concedes it would work.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Shovel found in O.J. Simpson's Bronco

discussed — Bailey establishes it is a barn/scoop-type shovel, not a digging shovel, defusing any sinister inference

Informal

Plastic lining in Simpson's Bronco (standard with vehicle)

briefly discussed — Fuhrman acknowledges he only learned it came with the car the Saturday before testimony

Informal

Letter written by Fuhrman to the city attorney/solicitor regarding the 1985 Simpson domestic incident

discussed — Bailey reads from it and Fuhrman confirms the 'indelibly pressed' language about Simpson's celebrity

Informal

Recorded statement taken from O.J. Simpson by Vannatter and Lange on June 13, 1994

Bailey attempts to reference it; Clark's sustained objections block the line of questioning on hearsay grounds

Notable Exchanges (3)

F. Lee Bailey•Marcia Clark•Judge Ito

Bailey repeatedly attempts to establish what Simpson told Vannatter and Lange during their three-hour conversation/interview on June 13. Clark objects on hearsay and relevance grounds; Ito sustains some and overrules others, ultimately blocking the substance of what Simpson said.

strategic

F. Lee Bailey•Mark Fuhrman

Bailey walks Fuhrman through his 1989 letter to the city attorney, establishing that Fuhrman wrote Simpson's celebrity made the 1985 incident 'indelibly pressed' into his memory, then probes whether that indelible memory was active when he was called to the Bundy scene in 1994.

revealing

F. Lee Bailey•Mark Fuhrman

Bailey establishes that Fuhrman, a Detective 2, was outranked by Phillps, Lange, and Vannatter (all Detective 3) and had only led 5-11 homicide investigations total, with this being his first double homicide of this nature.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

F. Lee Bailey

Bailey asks if the barn shovel found in Simpson's Bronco could be used to 'scoop out doggie-do'; Fuhrman says it's a little large for that but concedes it would work.

Mark Fuhrman

Fuhrman explains he took the 1983 detective school because a friend said 'you want to go to detective school' and he said 'sure' — casual, almost sheepish admission.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Mark Fuhrman

bias / prior relationship

Bailey establishes that Fuhrman had a prior, celebrity-heightened awareness of Simpson dating to 1985, memorialized in a 1989 letter using the phrase 'indelibly pressed into memory' — laying the foundation to argue Fuhrman arrived at the crime scene with a pre-existing investment in Simpson as a suspect.

⚔ Mark Fuhrman

limited qualifications

Bailey establishes Fuhrman did not complete high school (GED), attended community college only, and that this was his first double homicide as a detective — contrasting his self-presentation as a seasoned investigator with his relatively limited formal training and experience.

⚔ Mark Fuhrman

prior inconsistent implication

Bailey highlights that Fuhrman claims the 1985 Simpson encounter was 'indelibly' memorable but then says he 'barely thought of it' when called to a scene involving Nicole Brown Simpson's death — Bailey uses the tension between these positions to imply either fabrication or selective memory.

Witness Demeanor

(BRIEF PAUSE.) — Fuhrman pauses when asked to recall how many prior homicide cases involved time-of-death as a key issue

Objections

10 objections (4 sustained, 6 overruled)

Proceeding 5264 • 350 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103