Cross-examination of Charles Cale (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Charles Cale (part 1) — Friday, March 31, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\31\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-CHARLES-C.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 49 of 167

◀ Sidebar: witness health and privacy Sidebar: police reports discovery ▶

Witness: Charles Cale
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, March 31, 1995 • Lines: 84

Robert Shapiro cross-examines Charles Cale, a neighbor of OJ Simpson who discussed his observations concerning the Bronco. Shapiro focuses on undermining Cale's credibility by establishing that he made no attempt to report what he observed to police before January 25, 1995; after Cale talked with a friend who might be speaking to somebody from police, police called him. Shapiro also highlights that Cale, a self-employed private investor who had practiced law in California, lived within a quarter mile of Simpson and said no one had come to take his statement before the police called him.

# 1

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 2

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

# 3 Q:

GOOD MORNING, MR. CALE.

# 4 A:

MR. SHAPIRO.

# 5 Q:

MR. CALE, YOU SAID THAT THE POLICE CALLED YOU AND A REPORT WAS TAKEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 6 A:

YES, SIR.

# 7 Q:

AND THAT WAS -- WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY IF THAT REPORT IS DATED JANUARY THE 25TH?

# 8 A:

THAT SOUNDS -- I WAS GOING TO SAY LATE JANUARY OR EARLY FEBRUARY.

# 9 Q:

AND THEY CALLED IN RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAD CALLED SOMEONE ELSE AND ASKED TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE REGARDING THIS INCIDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 10 A:

NO. THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY CORRECT, NO.

# 11 Q:

HAVE YOU SEEN THE REPORT IN THIS CASE?

# 12 A:

I SAW IT VERY BRIEFLY THIS MORNING.

# 13 Q:

LET ME GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY -- WELL, LET ME JUST ASK YOU, THE REPORT IS A PAGE AND ONE PARAGRAPH?

# 14 A:

YES.

# 15 Q:

AND WAS THAT REPORT WHEN YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT ACCURATE?

# 16 A:

I TOOK A VERY SHORT BRIEF LOOK AT IT. I THOUGHT IT GENERALLY SEEMED ACCURATE.

# 17 Q:

DO YOU KNOW A PERSON BY THE NAME OF J. GARDNER?

# 18 A:

I DO.

# 19 Q:

IS THAT JEFF GARDNER?

# 20 A:

THAT IS.

# 21 Q:

AND WHO IS THAT?

# 22 A:

UH, HE'S A FRIEND.

# 23 Q:

WHAT DOES HE --

# 24 A:

HE'S ALSO A NEIGHBOR IN THE BRENTWOOD PARK.

# 25 Q:

WHAT DOES HE DO?

# 26 A:

HE'S IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.

# 27 Q:

AND DID YOU CALL HIM ABOUT THIS BRONCO?

# 28 A:

WE TALKED ABOUT THE BRONCO.

# 29 Q:

AND DID HE TELL YOU HE WOULD CALL THE POLICE, CALL THE COMMANDER ON YOUR BEHALF?

# 30 A:

HE TOLD ME THAT HE MIGHT BE TALKING TO SOMEBODY FROM THE POLICE.

# 31 Q:

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOU GOT A CALL?

# 32 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 33 Q:

NOBODY CAME TO YOUR HOUSE ON JUNE THE 12TH TO ASK YOU WHAT YOU HAD OBSERVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 34 A:

ON JUNE THE 12TH?

# 35 Q:

OF 1994.

# 36 A:

THAT'S SUNDAY?

# 37 Q:

YES.

# 38 A:

SUNDAY NIGHT, NO.

# 39 Q:

WHAT ABOUT JUNE 13TH? ANYBODY COME TO YOUR HOUSE TO ASK YOU WHAT HAD HAPPENED?

# 40 A:

I LEFT FOR -- FOR CANADA ON A FLIGHT AT 8:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

# 41 Q:

DID THE POLICE COME TO YOUR HOUSE TO TALK TO YOUR WIFE, FAMILY AND INQUIRE WHETHER ANYBODY AT YOUR RESIDENCE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE?

# 42 A:

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

# 43 Q:

DID YOU TALK TO YOUR WIFE?

# 44 A:

YES.

# 45 Q:

AND DID SHE EVER TELL YOU THAT SHE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY THE POLICE?

# 46 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 47 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. BUT HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED HE'S NOT AWARE OF ANY CONTACT.

# 48 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOUR RESIDENCE LOCATION, AND WE WILL RESPECT THAT.

CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU LIVE IN PROXIMITY TO MR. SIMPSON?

# 49 A:

I LIVE WITHIN -- CERTAINLY WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF MR. SIMPSON, LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE.

KEY QUOTE

# 50 Q:

AND UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT YOU CALLED THE POLICE -- WELL, YOU CALLED YOUR FRIEND AND THE POLICE CALLED YOU BACK, NO ONE --

# 51 A:

I DIDN'T -- EXCUSE ME. I DIDN'T CALL HIM. I WAS TALKING WITH HIM.

# 52 Q:

YOU TALKED TO YOUR FRIEND.

# 53 A:

YES.

# 54 Q:

AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOU WERE CALLED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. NO ONE HAD COME TO TAKE ANY STATEMENTS FROM YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU LIVE WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF MR. SIMPSON?

# 55 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 56 Q:

AND WHAT ATTEMPTS DID YOU MAKE TO REPORT WHAT YOU HAD OBSERVED TO THE POLICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 25TH OF 1995?

# 57 A:

I HAD MADE NONE.

# 58 Q:

WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION, SIR?

# 59 A:

I'M A SELF-EMPLOYED PRIVATE INVESTOR.

# 60 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL BACKGROUND?

# 61 A:

YES, SIR, I DO.

# 62 Q:

WHAT LEGAL BACKGROUND DO YOU HAVE?

# 63 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

# 64 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

# 65 CHARLES CALE:

I HAVE -- A LAW -- A LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE. I HAVE PRACTICED LAW IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

# 66 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO CONTACT THE POLICE TO REPORT EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO A MURDER CASE?

KEY QUOTE

# 67 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. HE NEVER SAID THAT. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 68 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 69 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU TELL -- WELL, YOU TALKED TO AN OFFICER BY THE NAME OF CROTSLEY, C-R-O-T-S-L-E-Y, ON JANUARY THE 24TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 70 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 71 Q:

AND AT THAT TIME, ARE YOU AWARE THAT HE REPORTED --

# 72 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. THIS IS HEARSAY. OBJECTION. IF COUNSEL IS GOING TO READ SOMETHING TO THE WITNESS, I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW WHAT HE'S GOING TO READ.

# 73 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 74 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED TO THE POLICE THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO CONTACT THEM TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION?

# 75 A:

THAT NEVER WAS AN ISSUE. THE ANSWER IS NO.

# 76 Q:

LET ME SHOW YOU A COPY OF THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY MR. CROTSLEY AND SEE --

# 77 MR. DARDEN:

YOU WANT TO SHOW ME WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW HIM?

# 78 MR. SHAPIRO:

YEAH. THIS IS WHAT YOU JUST SHOWED HIM THIS MORNING.

# 79 MR. DARDEN:

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW HIM THE ENTIRE REPORT?

# 80 MR. SHAPIRO:

THAT'S ALL I HAVE UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE, MR. DARDEN.

# 81 MR. DARDEN:

I DO HAVE MORE, MR. SHAPIRO.

# 82 MR. SHAPIRO:

MAY WE HAVE THAT, PLEASE?

# 83 MR. DARDEN:

NO, YOU MAY NOT.

# 84 THE COURT:

COUNSEL, I THOUGHT I DIRECTED YOU BOTH TO DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Charles Cale

I HAD MADE NONE.

Establishes that Cale made no attempts to report what he had observed to police before January 25, 1995.

Charles Cale

I LIVE WITHIN -- CERTAINLY WITHIN A QUARTER OF A MILE OF MR. SIMPSON, LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE.

Establishes proximity that makes it more remarkable police never canvassed him.

Robert Shapiro

AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO CONTACT THE POLICE TO REPORT EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO A MURDER CASE?

Shapiro's argumentative question linked Cale's past legal experience to his failure to contact police; Darden objected that Cale had never claimed ignorance, and the objection was sustained.

Christopher Darden

NO, YOU MAY NOT.

Darden said he had more of the report and denied Shapiro's request; Judge Ito directed both counsel to address their comments to the court and proceed.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Police report by Officer Crotsley described as dated January 25, 1995, documenting Cale's account of the Bronco

Shapiro attempts to show it to Cale and read from it; Darden objects and blocks Shapiro from reading it aloud; dispute over whether Shapiro has the complete report

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Christopher Darden

After Shapiro offers to show Cale the Crotsley report material that Darden had shown Cale that morning, Darden says he has more and denies Shapiro's request for it. Judge Ito intervenes to redirect both attorneys.

heated

Robert Shapiro•Charles Cale

Shapiro establishes that Cale — a self-employed private investor who had practiced law in California — lived within a quarter mile of Simpson and made no attempts to report his potentially relevant observations to police before January 25, 1995.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Charles Cale

omission / failure to come forward

Shapiro establishes that Cale discussed the Bronco with a friend who said he might speak with somebody from the police; Cale subsequently received a police call and testified that he had made no prior attempts to report what he observed before January 25, 1995.

⚔ Charles Cale

professional knowledge

Shapiro used Cale's legal background to suggest that Cale should have known how to contact police to report relevant evidence; Darden challenged the premise as something Cale had never said, and the court sustained the objection as argumentative.

⚔ LAPD investigation

investigative failure

Shapiro highlights that police never canvassed a neighbor living within a quarter mile of the Simpson estate who had relevant observations — suggesting investigative tunnel vision.

Objections

5 objections (2 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 5529 • 84 lines • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103