Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 1) — Monday, March 20, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\20\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-PHILIP-VA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 41 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Philip Vannatter Sidebar (1) ▶

Witness: Det. Philip Vannatter
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, March 20, 1995 • Utterances: 35

Robert Shapiro opens his cross-examination of Detective Vannatter by methodically challenging the detective's observation of a laceration and swelling on OJ Simpson's left-hand finger on June 13th. Shapiro suggests the swelling could have been a pre-existing medical condition rather than evidence of a fresh wound, and scores a visual moment by having Vannatter examine Simpson's finger in court and then having Simpson display the finger directly to the jury.

# 1 THE COURT:

MR. SHAPIRO.

# 2 MR. SHAPIRO:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

# 3

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 4 Q:

GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.

# 5 A:

GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.

# 6 Q:

WELL, STILL MORNING. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO START THIS AFTERNOON, THANKS. AS AN EXPERIENCED, DETECTIVE, YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR EVALUATION, DON'T YOU?

# 7 A:

I WOULD SAY THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.

# 8 Q:

AND YOU DON'T WANT TO JUMP TO ANY IMMEDIATE CONCLUSIONS, DO YOU?

# 9 A:

NO.

# 10 Q:

AND YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSIONS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE CORRECT, IN FAIRNESS, DO YOU NOT?

# 11 A:

YES.

# 12 Q:

AND IN THE CASE OF OBSERVING THE FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE THE 13TH, YOU CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A LACERATION ON THE MIDDLE KNUCKLE OF THE LEFT-HAND FINGER, AS WELL AS A SMALLER LACERATION, AND THAT THAT LACERATION HAD CAUSED SOME SWELLING; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 13 A:

YES.

# 14 Q:

AND I TAKE IT THAT YOU WOULD THEN WANT TO LATER EXAMINE MR. SIMPSON'S FINGER TO SEE WHAT THE NORMAL CONDITION OF HIS HAND WAS, WOULD YOU NOT?

# 15 A:

I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

# 16 Q:

WELL, WHAT IF --

# 17 A:

EXAMINE THE SAME FINGER LATER?

# 18 Q:

YES.

# 19 A:

WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE I THINK THE INJURY WOULD BE HEALED AT A LATER DATE.

# 20 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THE SWELLING HAD GONE DOWN AND RETURNED TO WHAT YOU BELIEVED WOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION, CORRECT?

# 21 A:

I NEVER DID THAT.

# 22 Q:

WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT?

# 23 A:

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO.

KEY QUOTE

# 24 Q:

WHAT IF HIS FINGER WAS ALWAYS SWOLLEN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION AND NOT DUE TO ANY LACERATION? WOULD THAT CONCERN YOU?

KEY QUOTE

# 25 A:

I GUESS THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY; HOWEVER, IT APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN FROM THE LACERATION THAT MORNING.

# 26 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, AND TELL US IF YOU SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JOINT ON THE FINGER ON THE 13TH WHEN YOU FIRST OBSERVED IT AND TODAY. WOULD YOU MIND DOING THAT FOR US?

# 27 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT THE WITNESS TO STEP AROUND?

# 28 MR. SHAPIRO:

YES, PLEASE.

# 29 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE.

# 30 (DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXAMINES THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER.)

# 31 MR. SHAPIRO:

YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I PROCEED WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAY MR. SIMPSON SHOW HIS FINGER TO THE JURY BEFORE WE DO FURTHER EXAMINATION? THANK YOU. MR. SIMPSON.

# 32 (THE DEFENDANT DISPLAYS HIS FINGER TO THE JURY.)

# 33 MR. SHAPIRO:

WHAT ABOUT THE BACK ROW? COULD THE COURT INQUIRE IF THE JURORS IN THE BACK ROW COULD SEE IT?

# 34 THE COURT:

I BELIEVE THEY COULD SEE IT THEY ARE INDICATING. THEY ARE NODDING AFFIRMATIVELY.

# 35 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Examiner (Shapiro)

WHAT IF HIS FINGER WAS ALWAYS SWOLLEN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION AND NOT DUE TO ANY LACERATION? WOULD THAT CONCERN YOU?

Core defense argument — the finger injury central to the prosecution's blood-drop evidence may have had an innocent, pre-existing cause.

Witness (Vannatter)

I NEVER DID THAT.

Vannatter admits he never followed up to establish a baseline for Simpson's finger condition, undermining the thoroughness of his observation.

Witness (Vannatter)

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO.

Vannatter's dismissiveness when asked if he'd like to examine the finger now — Shapiro immediately exploits this by having him do exactly that in open court.

Evidence (1)

Informal

OJ Simpson's left-hand finger — laceration and swelling observed by Vannatter on June 13th

discussed, then physically examined in court by Vannatter and displayed to jury

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Philip Vannatter

Shapiro walks Vannatter through his own methodology ('you don't want to jump to immediate conclusions') then uses it against him — revealing Vannatter never followed up on the finger observation to establish whether the swelling was injury-related or pre-existing.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Lance A. Ito•OJ Simpson

Shapiro engineers a live demonstration: Vannatter examines Simpson's finger in court, then Simpson displays it to the jury, including making sure the back row can see it.

theatrical/strategic

Light Moments (1)

Robert Shapiro / Philip Vannatter

Shapiro greets Vannatter 'Good afternoon' and is corrected by the witness that it's still morning — Shapiro thanks him for the correction.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Philip Vannatter

omission / investigative negligence

Shapiro establishes that Vannatter, despite considering himself an experienced detective who doesn't jump to conclusions, never followed up to examine Simpson's finger at a later date to confirm whether the swelling was from the laceration or a pre-existing condition — undermining the evidentiary value of his June 13th observation.

Witness Demeanor

(DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXAMINES THE DEFENDANT'S FINGER.)

(THE DEFENDANT DISPLAYS HIS FINGER TO THE JURY.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 5338 • 35 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103