Sidebar: newspaper articles and coroner procedures

📄 Sidebar: newspaper articles and coroner procedures — Monday, March 6, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\6\SIDEBAR-NEWSPAPER-ARTICLES-AND.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 31 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Tom Lange (morning, part 1) Cross-examination of Tom Lange (morning, part 2) ▶

Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Date: Monday, March 6, 1995 • Utterances: 107

During cross-examination of Detective Lange, Cochran approached the bench twice to introduce newspaper articles — first an LA Times piece quoting prosecutor Darden criticizing LAPD witnesses' performance on cross-examination, and second an Albany newspaper reporting a speech by the No. 3 LA County Coroner official complaining that the LAPD 'dropped the ball' in notifying the coroner's office and handling the crime scene. Judge Ito allowed limited questioning about whether the detective was aware of any such controversies, but barred Cochran from reading specifics from the articles as hearsay.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW ME SOMETHING FROM THE L.A. TIMES?

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

FROM FRIDAY FEBRUARY 24TH. I THINK THIS WAS AFTER HE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE STAND. I DON'T KNOW IF HE TESTIFIED LAST THURSDAY THE 23RD OR THEREABOUTS. I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING INTO THE RECORD, IF THE COURT PLEASES. I WILL JUST READ THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH. "ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE CLOSE TO THE PROSECUTION, DARDEN'S OWN SUPERIORS WERE DISPLEASED WHEN HE ALLOWED HIM TO BE INTERVIEWED WEDNESDAY NIGHT BY TALK SHOW PERSONALITY GERALDO RIVERA. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVIEW, WHICH DARDEN INSISTS HE DID NOT KNOW WAS BEING BROADCAST, THE PROSECUTOR APPEARED TO CRITICIZE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THE CASE. 'I WOULD LIKE THE OFFICERS TO BE A BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE,' HE SAID. 'THEY ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS BEING PUT TO THEM ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS I THINK ARE A BIT RIDICULOUS AND I WISH THAT THEY WOULD POINT THAT OUT TO THE JURY ON OCCASION. I'M SURE, PAREN, COCHRAN, END PAREN, IS SCORING SOME POINTS WITH THIS.'" AND SO I WANT TO ASK HIM IF THAT -- IF HE WAS TOLD THAT AND IF HE READ THAT ARTICLE AND BECAME AWARE OF THAT.

# 4 THE COURT:

I THOUGHT YOU JUST ASKED HIM IF HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT.

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

I DID ASK HIM, BUT I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS AWARE.

# 6 THE COURT:

YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE READ THE ARTICLE.

# 7 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF HIM READING THE ARTICLE? EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL.

# 8 MR. COCHRAN:

TALK TO THE JUDGE.

# 9 THE COURT:

MISS CLARK.

# 10 MS. CLARK:

SO AM I NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO UNINTERRUPTED. THIS ARTICLE IS SOMETHING, PERHAPS IF IT IS EVEN ACCURATELY STATED, ONE PROSECUTOR'S OPINION STATED TO SOMEONE ELSE, NOT STATED TO THIS DETECTIVE. THE ONLY APPROPRIATE QUESTION IS DID HE TELL YOU THAT? ANSWER, NO, AND THAT IS IT. I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER RELEVANCE TO IT.

# 11 THE COURT:

OR HAS IT BEEN COMMUNICATED -- HAS THAT THOUGHT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO YOU BY ANYBODY ELSE?

# 12 MS. CLARK:

LET HIM LOOK AT THE ARTICLE.

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

LET THE JUDGE LOOK AT IT.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

YES. LET ME INDICATE SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I FIND EXTREMELY UNETHICAL, COUNSEL PRODUCING THINGS -- ARTICLES AND NEWSPAPERS IN FRONT OF THIS JURY WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY INFORMING US, OBVIOUSLY HAD THIS DOWN IN COURT READY TO BE PRODUCED. IT SHOULD BE TOLD TO US. WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT AT SIDE BAR BEFORE HE BRANDISHES IT BEFORE THE JURY IN THIS MATTER.

# 15 MR. COCHRAN:

CROSS-EXAMINATION I AM NOT BRANDISHING ANYTHING. CROSS-EXAMINATION. JUST LIKE FRIDAY I BROUGHT IT OVER HERE AND ASKED TO APPROACH THE BENCH. I AM SHOWING IT TO THE COURT NOW.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

HE WAVED IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

# 18 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. CHILDREN, CHILDREN, THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. IF WE ARE GOING TO USE THINGS LIKE THIS, THOUGH, YOU NEED TO SHOW COUNSEL.

KEY QUOTE

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

I AM DOING JUST LIKE THEY DID ON FRIDAY.

# 20 THE COURT:

YOU CAN ASK HIM IF THAT THOUGHT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM BY ANYBODY ELSE AND IF HE READ ANY NEWSPAPER COVERAGE THAT MIGHT INCLUDE THAT THOUGHT AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAS IMPACTED HIS TESTIMONY OR NOT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO.

# 21 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

# 22 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 23 THE COURT:

MR. COCHRAN.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 25 Q:

DETECTIVE LANGE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO READ ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WHEREIN MR. DARDEN WAS QUOTED --

# 26 THE COURT:

NO, NO, NO. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES BEARING ON HIS TESTIMONY --

# 27 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT.

# 28 THE COURT:

-- IN THE COURTROOM.

# 29 MR. COCHRAN:

RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR.

# 30 Q:

DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO READ ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES BEARING UPON YOUR TESTIMONY AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR ANSWERS?

# 31 A:

NO.

# 32 Q:

DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION AT ALL WITH MR. DARDEN ABOUT THE WAY YOU WERE ANSWERING QUESTIONS LAST WEEK, THAT IS THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY THE 20TH?

# 33 A:

WE DISCUSSED VARIOUS PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY.

# 34 Q:

AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE WAY YOU WERE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS?

# 35 A:

I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING SPECIFIC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS FAR AS HOW I WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

# 36 Q:

WELL, GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. DID HE CRITICIZE YOU DURING DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM?

# 37 A:

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS CRITICIZED.

# 38 Q:

YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT AS CRITICISM?

# 39 A:

NO.

# 40 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

# 41 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 42 MR. COCHRAN:

I AM ASKING IF HE DID TAKE IT AS CRITICISM.

# 43 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 44 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU?

# 45 A:

AGAIN I HAVE NO SPECIFICS AS FAR AS EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, BUT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T TAKE IT AS CRITICISM.

# 46 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO MISS CLARK, WHAT DID SHE SAY TO YOU ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, IF ANYTHING?

# 47 A:

AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFICS. I DON'T RECALL ANY CRITICISM, HOWEVER.

# 48 Q:

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SPOKE WITH THESE TWO LAWYERS, EITHER OF THESE TWO LAWYERS, ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY?

# 49 A:

AT LEAST A WEEK AGO, PERHAPS LONGER.

# 50 Q:

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER YOU CONCLUDED YOUR TESTIMONY THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE?

# 51 A:

I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON A THURSDAY. I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS AFTER OR PRIOR.

# 52 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T RECALL IF YOU TALKED TO HIM EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THAT?

# 53 A:

WELL, I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK. I BELIEVE I TESTIFIED A WEEK AGO THURSDAY THE LAST TIME, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION ON MY TESTIMONY THAT FRIDAY OR IT WAS BEFORE. I JUST DON'T RECALL.

# 54 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT TIME, THAT YOU RECALL?

# 55 A:

I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID. WE WERE DISCUSSING MY TESTIMONY AND WHAT I WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO.

# 56 Q:

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL A CONVERSATION THAT YOU AND I HAD WHEREIN YOU INDICATED THAT YOU VERY OFTEN DON'T LISTEN TO LAWYERS ANYWAY?

# 57 A:

NO, I DON'T.

# 58 Q:

YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION?

# 59 A:

NO.

# 60 Q:

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING YOU MIGHT SAY?

# 61 A:

THAT I DON'T LISTEN TO LAWYERS OFTEN?

# 62 Q:

YOU DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT LAWYERS SAY VERY OFTEN ANYWAY?

# 63 A:

I THINK I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL IF I SAID THAT.

# 64 Q:

YOU DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT?

# 65 A:

NO, I DON'T.

# 66 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH AGAIN JUST FOR A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL?

# 67 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

# 68 THE COURT:

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?

# 69 MR. COCHRAN:

I WANT TO SHOW THE COURT THIS AND SHOW COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO READ THIS. THERE WERE ONLY TWO COPIES THAT WERE SENT TO ME.

# 70 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 71 MR. COCHRAN:

THAT WAS YESTERDAY'S PAPER IN ALBANY, NEW YORK.

# 72 MS. CLARK:

HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO CROSS OF THIS DETECTIVE?

# 73 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 74 THE COURT:

OKAY. SO -- ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE REFERRING TO --

# 75 MR. COCHRAN:

SAME ARTICLE.

# 76 THE COURT:

SAME ARTICLE.

# 77 MS. CLARK:

I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE.

# 78 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

# 79 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

# 80 MR. COCHRAN:

ESSENTIALLY, FIRST OF ALL, THE RELEVANCE IS I WENT INTO SOME DETAIL WITH DETECTIVE LANGE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU ALLOWED ME -- AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONTROVERSY WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THIS, WHATEVER, THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONCERN OR PROBLEMS EXPRESSED BY ANYBODY IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AT ALL. AND THIS MAN GAVE A SPEECH, WHICH WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TAPE, HE JUST GAVE A SPEECH SATURDAY, WHERE HE SUPPOSEDLY -- THE NO. 3 L.A. CORONER -- WHO SAYS THAT, THIS IS A QUOTE, "DROPPED THE BALL," THEY HAVE DONE THIS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. HE TALKS ABOUT TEN HOURS. THEY GET THE CALL ON THIS CASE AND WE GET THERE AND YOU WANT US TO TELL -- YOU WANT TO TELL US WHEN HE DIED, HE ASKED INCREDULOUSLY. EVERYBODY TRAMPLED AROUND. WHOSE FOOTPRINTS ARE THOSE? YOURS? THEIRS?" HE GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE EXACT TIME OF DEATH. "SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION IN THE CASE WAS NEVER DETERMINED, ONLY APPROXIMATED TO BE AROUND 10:15 THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12." SO I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE THAT MR. JIMENEZ, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE, HAS IN FACT COMPLAINED IN THE PAST AND ASK HIM IF HE IS AWARE OF THIS ARTICLE, BECAUSE JIMENEZ IS GOING TO BE A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION, VERY RELEVANT.

# 81 MS. CLARK:

"THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION" IS NOT A LEGAL GROUND TO GET IN THERE AND ASK QUESTIONS OF A WITNESS WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE. THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT OF DETECTIVE LANGE. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS INDICATED HE HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS AND IS NOT RELEVANT TO HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF COUNSEL WANT TO CALL THE WITNESS, THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE MEANS BY WHICH TO CRITICIZE THEIR PROCEDURES.

# 82 THE COURT:

SO THE OBJECTION IS HEARSAY?

# 83 MS. CLARK:

I'M SORRY. OBJECTION, HEARSAY. ALSO OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. AND OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

# 84 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

# 85 MR. COCHRAN:

THIS GOES TO A PRIOR STATEMENT. I ASKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER HEARD, AND I THINK THE COURT HAD POINTED OUT --

# 86 THE COURT:

BUT WHEN WAS THIS SPEECH GIVEN?

# 87 MR. COCHRAN:

SATURDAY.

# 88 MS. CLARK:

AND THE QUESTION -- THE WITNESS WAS ASKED --

# 89 MR. COCHRAN:

BUT YOUR HONOR -- MAY I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US -- ALLOW ME TO CONCLUDE BEFORE COUNSEL KEEPS INTERRUPTING. THEY HAVE DROPPED THE BALL. THEY HAVE DONE ON THIS NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. JUDGE, HE IS TALKING ABOUT IN CASES -- TALKING ABOUT IT BEFORE, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE DUTY TO NOTIFY.

# 90 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN CALL MR. JIMENEZ. YOU CAN ASK THIS DETECTIVE IF HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS WITH MR. JIMENEZ OR IF HE HAS DISCUSSED IT WITH ANYBODY AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE WAY THE LAPD HANDLED CALLING THE CORONER. YOU ASK HIM THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T ASK HIM SPECIFICS FROM THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

# 91 MR. COCHRAN:

YES. OKAY. SO WE ARE CLEAR, I WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT JIMENEZ, I GUESS.

# 92 THE COURT:

HAS HE EVER DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM?

# 93 MR. COCHRAN:

OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO ASK -- HE TOLD ME THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONTROVERSY AND THIS GUY SAYS THERE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, AND HE IS THE THIRD-RANKING GUY THERE.

# 94 MS. CLARK:

SO THIS DETECTIVE IS NOT AWARE OF IT. SO YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THIS DETECTIVE WITH INFORMATION HE IS NOT AWARE OF. YOU JUST CALL YOUR WITNESS, COUNSEL. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO TRY A LAWSUIT? IS THIS MY COPY?

# 95 THE COURT:

I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT AS HEARSAY. IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT SINCE HE TESTIFIED IS HE AWARE OF ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY ABOUT IT, YES OR NO --

# 96 MR. COCHRAN:

ASK HIM ABOUT CONTROVERSY WITH JIMENEZ AND THAT SORT OF THING?

# 97 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. NO, NO, ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY REGARDING CALL OUT.

# 98 MR. COCHRAN:

I CAN'T MENTION JIMENEZ?

# 99 THE COURT:

YOU CAN MENTION JIMENEZ, IF HE HAS EVER DISCUSSED IT OR HEARD OF ANY CRITICISM. THAT IS ALL.

# 100 MS. CLARK:

BUT NO MENTION OF ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? NO MENTION OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? IS THAT THE COURT'S RULING?

# 101 THE COURT:

AT THIS POINT, NO.

# 102 MR. COCHRAN:

AT THIS POINT, JUDGE, HEARSAY, BUT IF IT IMPEACHES THIS MAN, THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE, JUDGE, LET ME --

# 103 THE COURT:

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DON'T IMPEACH WITNESSES UNLESS THE PERSON QUOTED, COUNSEL.

KEY QUOTE

# 104 MR. COCHRAN:

IT MAY NOT, BUT WHAT I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT --

# 105 THE COURT:

HEARSAY.

# 106 MR. COCHRAN:

THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE GIVES YOU GOOD FAITH TO ASK THIS QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME.

KEY QUOTE

# 107 THE COURT:

IT GIVES YOU GOOD FAITH TO ASK THE QUESTION ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONTROVERSY, SURE, THAT IS IT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Lance A. Ito

ALL RIGHT. CHILDREN, CHILDREN, THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ENOUGH.

Ito's exasperated rebuke of both Cochran and Clark bickering at sidebar captures the contentious dynamic between counsel.

Marcia Clark

DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO TRY A LAWSUIT? IS THIS MY COPY?

Clark's sharp attack on Cochran's evidentiary approach — followed immediately by asking for her copy of the article — underscores both the combativeness and the absurdity of the moment.

Johnnie Cochran

THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE GIVES YOU GOOD FAITH TO ASK THIS QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME.

Cochran's core legal argument: even if the article is hearsay, it provides good faith basis to probe the witness on the underlying controversy.

Lance A. Ito

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DON'T IMPEACH WITNESSES UNLESS THE PERSON QUOTED, COUNSEL.

Ito's clean statement of the evidentiary rule that ultimately limits Cochran's line of questioning.

Evidence (2)

Informal

LA Times article dated February 24 quoting prosecutor Darden (via unnamed source) saying he wished LAPD witnesses would be 'more aggressive' on cross-examination

discussed at sidebar; court allowed limited questioning whether detective read articles bearing on his testimony

Informal

Albany, NY newspaper article reporting a Saturday speech by the No. 3 LA County Coroner official (Jimenez) criticizing LAPD crime scene handling and coroner notification procedures in the Simpson case

discussed at sidebar; court sustained hearsay objection, barred use of article specifics

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Marcia Clark

Clark accused Cochran of brandishing the LA Times article in front of the jury without prior notice, calling it 'extremely unethical'; Cochran shot back that he was following the same procedure used by the prosecution the prior Friday.

heated

Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran

Clark challenged the relevance of the Jimenez/coroner article to Detective Lange's cross-examination, arguing Lange had nothing to do with the coroner's office and the proper vehicle was calling Jimenez as a witness; Clark ended with 'Don't you know how to try a lawsuit?'

heated

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran argued the Jimenez speech — in which the No. 3 coroner complained that police 'trampled around' the scene and that time of death was only approximated at 'around 10:15' — directly contradicted Lange's denial of any controversy with the coroner's office.

strategic

Light Moments (2)

Lance A. Ito

Judge Ito told both attorneys 'ALL RIGHT. CHILDREN, CHILDREN, THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ENOUGH.'

Marcia Clark

After arguing strenuously against the article, Clark immediately asked 'IS THIS MY COPY?' of the very newspaper she was objecting to.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Detective Lange

prior inconsistent statement / bias via third-party statement

Cochran used Darden's reported Geraldo Rivera interview to suggest LAPD witnesses had been coached or pressured to testify more aggressively; separately attempted to use the Jimenez coroner speech to undercut Lange's denial that any controversy existed about LAPD's crime scene and coroner-notification procedures.

Witness Demeanor

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 5170 • 107 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103