Cross-examination of Det. Tom Lange

📄 Cross-examination of Det. Tom Lange — Tuesday, March 7, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\7\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DET-TOM-L.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 32 of 167

◀ Jury called in Redirect examination of Det. Tom Lange (morning, part 1) ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, March 7, 1995 • Utterances: 247

Cochran continued his cross-examination of Detective Lange, focusing on chain-of-custody problems with the Reebok tennis shoes recovered from OJ Simpson's home. A video (Deft 1049) showed Lange carrying the shoes under his arm to the front seat of his car before driving 36-38 miles home — a detail Lange had never disclosed to the jury. Cochran also pressed Lange on an apparent fabrication in his notes (referencing a 'Wong' at the SID lab who apparently never existed), the failure to book Nicole Brown Simpson's blanket as evidence, and the absence of any notation of blood on the rear gate in Lange's notes or sketch.

# 1 THE COURT:

MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

AND I HOPE CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

# 3 THE JURY:

GOOD MORNING.

# 4

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

# 5

BY MR. COCHRAN:

# 6 Q:

GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE.

# 7 A:

GOOD MORNING.

# 8 Q:

AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MEETING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, I BELIEVE ON JUNE 14, 1994, AT THE SID LAB, AND I HAD ASKED YOU TO REFER TO YOUR CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD, PAGE 00007. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 9 A:

YES.

# 10 Q:

AND IN THAT MEETING YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD CONFERRED WITH CRIMINALIST MATHESON, WONG, YAMAUCHI THAT MORNING AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE SNEAKERS WERE TURNED OVER. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 11 A:

I BELIEVE I CONFERRED WITH MATHESON, AND WONG AND YAMAGUCHI (SIC) WERE PRESENT.

# 12 Q:

NOW, WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE SID UNIT HAS NEVER HAD A MR. WONG IN THE LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS?

KEY QUOTE

# 13 A:

I DON'T KNOW.

# 14 Q:

WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT?

# 15 A:

NOT NECESSARILY.

# 16 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 17 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 18 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU HAVE MISPLACED AND MEANT FUNG WHEN YOU SAID WONG?

# 19 A:

CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

# 20 Q:

NOW, IN FACT YOU DID IN FACT SEE OR TALK WITH MR. FUNG THAT PARTICULAR MORNING, DID YOU NOT, OF JUNE 14, 1994?

# 21 A:

I MAY HAVE.

# 22 Q:

HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPERTY REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE REEBOK SHOES THAT WERE TURNED OVER?

# 23 A:

I BELIEVE I HAVE.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

COUNSEL.

# 25 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

# 27 THE COURT:

YES.

# 28 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO PLACE BEFORE YOU A PROPERTY REPORT. I THINK IT IS DATED 6/15/94 AND IT DEALS WITH ITEM NO. 18, OF THE EVIDENCE, AND READ THAT TO YOURSELF, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO IT.

# 29 A:

(WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

# 30 Q:

YOU READ THAT?

# 31 A:

YES.

# 32 Q:

AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME YOU ACTUALLY TURNED THE SNEAKERS OVER TO THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE SID LAB?

# 33 A:

IT STATES 8:30. I TURNED THEM OVER TO MR. MATHESON AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 A.M. FOR AN EXAMINATION.

# 34 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS SOME KIND OF A DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS BLOOD ON THOSE TENNIS SHOES?

# 35 A:

YES. I HAD ASKED THAT HE DO A PRESUMPTIVE EXAMINATION.

# 36 Q:

AND THAT EXAMINATION, THE PRESUMPTIVE EXAMINATION, TOOK ONLY A FEW MINUTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 37 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 38 Q:

AND THEN YOU BECAME -- I THINK YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT THE -- THESE TENNIS SHOES WERE NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 39 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 40 Q:

AND SO -- WELL, THEN IF THAT IS -- WAS THIS AROUND SEVEN O'CLOCK YOU DID THAT?

# 41 A:

THAT IS APPROXIMATELY THE TIME THAT I ARRIVED AND TURNED THEM OVER, YES.

# 42 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED FOR THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF OR SO, IF YOU RECALL?

# 43 A:

I WASN'T THERE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.

# 44 Q:

SO WHEN THE PROPERTY INDICATES THAT IT WAS TURNED OVER -- RECEIVED FROM DETECTIVE LANGE AT 8:30, ON 1/14/94 (SIC); IS THAT CORRECT?

# 45 A:

I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE LAB AND 7:00 OR APPROXIMATELY 7:00 A.M. AND WAS PROBABLY TURNED OVER TO MR. FUNG AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 AS INDICATED.

# 46 Q:

ALL RIGHT. THIS REPORT IS A REPORT DONE BY FUNG AND MAZZOLLA; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 47 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 48 MR. COCHRAN:

AND PERHAPS I SHOULD MARK THIS REPORT, SINCE I'M REFERRING TO IT, AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

# 49 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION. THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS WHO PREPARED THE REPORT.

# 50 THE COURT:

1048.

# 51 MR. COCHRAN:

1048.

# 52 (DEFT'S 1048 FOR ID = PROPERTY REPORT)

# 53 THE COURT:

NOT TALKING ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY. IT IS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

# 54 MR. COCHRAN:

YES.

# 55 Q:

AND READ THIS MIDDLE PART HERE WITH REGARD TO -- READ THAT TO YOURSELF WITH REGARD TO THE CRIMINALIST AND THE LAB.

# 56 A:

(WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

# 57 Q:

YOU READ THAT?

# 58 A:

YES.

# 59 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE ITEM WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE REEBOKS, WAS IN FACT RECOVERED BY CRIMINALIST FUNG IN THE PARTICULAR LAB ON JUNE 14, 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 60 A:

THAT IS WHAT IT STATES.

# 61 Q:

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING ALSO?

# 62 A:

I BELIEVE THAT IS A FIGURE OF SPEECH AS FAR AS BEING "RECOVERED." IT WAS TAKEN INTO HIS CUSTODY. I IMAGINE YOU COULD SAY IT EITHER WAY.

# 63 Q:

OR RECEIVED, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 64 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 65 Q:

ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US OR DESCRIBE FOR US THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS KEPT IN YOUR VEHICLE WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE, SUCH AS PLASTIC BAGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR US?

# 66 A:

I DO HAVE SOME PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, DISPOSABLE RUBBER GLOVES. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN AIDS KIT.

# 67 Q:

WHAT IS THAT?

# 68 A:

AIDS KIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF SYRINGES.

# 69 Q:

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN RECALL?

# 70 A:

NOTEBOOKS, PENCILS, FLASHLIGHTS, RULES, MEASURING DEVICES, MEASURING TAPE.

# 71 Q:

NOW, YOU HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 72 A:

I HAD CONVERSATION WITH HER, YES.

# 73 Q:

CAN YOU GIVE US AN ESTIMATE OF HOW -- APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG YOU TALKED TO HER THAT MORNING WHILE SHE WAS AT THE SCENE?

# 74 A:

THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION. IT WAS OFF AND ON. I WAS DOING OTHER THINGS AND I REALLY COULDN'T SAY.

# 75 Q:

DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE AT ALL OF HOW LONG ALTOGETHER YOU MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO HER IN ALL THE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS, SIR?

# 76 A:

AS FAR AS STRICTLY CONVERSATION?

# 77 Q:

YES, SIR, CONVERSATIONS.

# 78 A:

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY.

# 79 Q:

DO YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE AT ALL?

# 80 A:

I COULDN'T PIN MYSELF DOWN TO AN ESTIMATE. PERHAPS STRICTLY CONVERSATION, MAYBE 15, 20, 25 MINUTES, MAYBE LONGER.

# 81 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SOMEWHERE 15 MINUTES, OR LONGER, WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 82 A:

I DON'T KNOW.

# 83 Q:

ALL RIGHT.

# 84 A:

I JUST DON'T KNOW.

# 85 Q:

YOU HAVE NO NOTES WHICH WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IN THAT REGARD?

# 86 A:

AS FAR AS HOW LONG THAT I SPOKE WITH HER?

# 87 Q:

YES.

# 88 A:

I WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

# 89 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YESTERDAY WE TOUCHED UPON BRIEFLY THE FACT THAT YOUR NOTES DO NOT REFLECT ANY SPOTS THAT RESEMBLE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

# 90 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 91 Q:

IN ADDITION TO THAT YOU DID IN FACT A DIAGRAM OR A SKETCH OF THAT REAR GATE IN YOUR NOTES ALSO, DID YOU NOT?

# 92 A:

YES.

# 93 Q:

AND YOU DON'T PLACE ANY SPOTS OR ANY INDICATION OF ANY BLOOD IN YOUR DIAGRAM IN YOUR NOTES EITHER, DO YOU?

# 94 A:

NO, I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.

# 95 Q:

SO THE ANSWER IS YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT IN YOUR NOTES; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 96 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 97 Q:

NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SCENE AT BUNDY, AND IN ONE OF THE VIDEOS WE SAW THAT AT SOME POINT A SHEET WAS EITHER PLACED OVER THE BODY OR A SHEET WAS OVER THE BODY. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT?

# 98 A:

I BELIEVE IT WAS A BLANKET, YES.

# 99 Q:

ALL RIGHT. IT WAS WHITE IN COLOR, WAS IT NOT?

# 100 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 101 Q:

AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, THIS PARTICULAR SHEET OR BLANKET, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHEET WAS TAKEN AND BOOKED AS EVIDENCE?

# 102 A:

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.

# 103 Q:

WAS THERE ONE BLANKET OR SHEET FOR EACH BODY OR WAS IT THE SAME SHEET FOR -- FOR THE TWO BODIES?

# 104 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

# 105 Q:

DID YOU HAVE TWO SHEETS OR ONE SHEET?

# 106 A:

NO, THERE WAS ONLY ONE SHEET AND THAT WAS TO COVER THE ONE VICTIM FROM PUBLIC VIEW.

# 107 Q:

THAT WAS MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

# 108 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 109 Q:

AND WHEN THE -- WHEN THAT SCENE, THE CRIME SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN, THAT SHEET WAS JUST LEFT ON THE GROUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 110 A:

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

# 111 Q:

NOW, IT IS IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, FOR YOU TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE ANY POSSIBLE TRACE EVIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 112 A:

TRACE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

# 113 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE VERY FRAGILE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 114 A:

IT CAN BE.

# 115 Q:

AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF TRACE EVIDENCE?

# 116 A:

TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE HAIR OR FIBERS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EVIDENCE, DEBRIS, THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE.

# 117 Q:

AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE MOVED FROM ONE SURFACE TO THE OTHER PRETTY EASILY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 118 A:

I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND.

# 119 Q:

AND THAT MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THINGS SUCH AS HAIR AND FIBERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT MIGHT COME OFF A BODY?

# 120 A:

IT IS POSSIBLE.

# 121 Q:

BLOOD ON A BODY CAN BE WIPED OFF IF THE BODY COME IN CONTACT WITH SOMETHING OF THE NATURE OF EITHER A SHEET OR A BLANKET; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 122 A:

IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THAT BLANKET OR SHEET WERE PLACED ON THE BODY.

# 123 Q:

BUT THE BLOOD COULD IN FACT COME OFF ON THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR, ON A SHEET OR A BLANKET?

# 124 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 125 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 126 DET. TOM LANGE:

I WOULDN'T KNOW. IT WOULD DEPEND ON IF THE BLOOD WAS DRY OR IF IT WERE WET AND HOW THE BLANKET OR SHEET WERE PLACED.

# 127 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD COME OFF; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 128 A:

I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE.

# 129 Q:

IN FACT, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO BLOOD DROPS OR BLOOD SPATTERS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU SAW AT THE SCENE?

# 130 A:

YES, SIR.

# 131 Q:

WHICH WERE NOT PRESERVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 132 A:

THAT IS CORRECT.

# 133 Q:

DID YOU TAKE ANY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BLANKET OR SHEET DID NOT WIPE OFF THE BLOOD SPOTS ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

# 134 A:

YES.

# 135 Q:

WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE?

# 136 A:

TO PLACE THE BLANKET VERY GINGERLY OVER THE VICTIM, AND WHEN THE BLANKETS WERE REMOVED THE BLOOD SPOTS WERE STILL IN TACT, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHOTOGRAPH.

# 137 Q:

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THIS BLANKET AT THAT SCENE THAT MORNING?

# 138 A:

WHEN I LEFT.

# 139 Q:

WHAT TIME WAS THAT, APPROXIMATELY?

# 140 A:

APPROXIMATELY NOON, I BELIEVE, PERHAPS 12:15.

# 141 Q:

WHEN YOU LEFT TO GO DOWNTOWN?

# 142 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 143 Q:

AND AT THAT TIME -- AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THAT PARTICULAR BLANKET WAS WHITE IN COLOR, WAS IT NOT?

# 144 A:

YES, IT WAS.

# 145 Q:

AND IT WAS NEVER PRESERVED OR KEPT OR BOOKED BY ANYONE, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, OF THE LAPD; IS THAT CORRECT?

KEY QUOTE

# 146 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 147 Q:

NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU AT THIS POINT NOW, SIR, A VIDEO AND ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AFTER IT IS SHOWN.

# 148 THE COURT:

WHICH VIDEO IS THIS, MR. COCHRAN?

# 149 MR. COCHRAN:

THE ONE WE DEALT WITH YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR, THE VIDEO INVOLVING THE DETECTIVE.

# 150 (AT 8:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1049, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

# 151 MR. COCHRAN:

CAN YOU MAKE THAT CLEARER ON THE BIG SCREEN, YOUR HONOR?

# 152 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE THOSE TWO MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

# 153 A:

YES.

# 154 Q:

THIS IS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, IS IT, SIR?

# 155 A:

YES.

# 156 Q:

WHO IS THAT GENTLEMAN WHO THE CAMERA IS FOCUSED ON THERE?

# 157 A:

THAT IS MY PARTNER, MR. VANNATTER, AND MYSELF.

# 158 Q:

STOP IT RIGHT THERE. WHAT IS THAT UNDER YOUR RIGHT ARM?

# 159 A:

IT IS A PAIR OF REEBOK TENNIS SHOES, SIZE 12.

# 160 Q:

ARE THOSE THE TENNIS SHOES WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?

# 161 A:

YES.

# 162 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT.

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

# 164 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE GENTLEMAN WALKING WITH THE TENNIS SHOES ON HIS ARM, THAT IS YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 165 A:

YES.

# 166 Q:

ARE YOU LEAVING THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT THIS POINT?

# 167 A:

YES.

# 168 Q:

AND AFTER YOU CLOSED THE DOOR, DID YOU DRIVE OFF FROM THE LOCATION AT THAT POINT?

# 169 A:

YES.

# 170 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THAT TAPE, I GUESS, AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, I GUESS.

# 171 THE COURT:

1049.

# 172 MR. COCHRAN:

1049.

# 173 THE COURT:

IS THAT CORRECT, MRS. ROBERTSON?

# 174 THE CLERK:

YES.

# 175 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT.

# 176 (DEFT'S 1049 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE RE REEBOKS)

# 177 THE COURT:

1049.

# 178 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THIS TAPE WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SINCE WE WERE IN COURT LAST EVENING?

# 179 A:

THE CONTENTS?

# 180 Q:

YES, WHAT WAS ON THIS PARTICULAR TAPE.

# 181 A:

I HAVE SEEN THE TAPE MANY TIMES. I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED ANYTHING.

# 182 Q:

THE QUESTION IS DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SINCE WE WERE IN COURT LAST EVENING?

# 183 A:

NO.

# 184 Q:

YOU DID NOT DISCUSS IT LAST NIGHT?

# 185 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 186 Q:

YOU DID NOT DISCUSS IT THIS MORNING?

# 187 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 188 Q:

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT TAPE, AFTER YOU PLACED THOSE REEBOK TENNIS SHOES IN THE FRONT SEAT, DID YOU DRIVE OFF?

# 189 A:

YES.

# 190 Q:

DID YOU GO HOME AT THAT POINT?

# 191 A:

YES, I DID.

# 192 Q:

DID YOU SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED TO YOU IN THAT VIDEO THOSE SHOES WERE PLACED IN ANY KIND OF A BOX?

# 193 A:

THOSE SHOES WERE PLACED IN A BOX ONCE I RETURNED TO MY HOME, AND PLACED INTO THE TRUNK OF MY VEHICLE.

# 194 Q:

WHEN YOU GOT HOME?

# 195 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 196 Q:

BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THAT AT THE SCENE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 197 A:

AS YOUR TAPE SHOWS, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF MEDIA AND I WAS GETTING PUSHED AND SHOVED AND THAT MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET AWAY FROM THE MEDIA.

KEY QUOTE

# 198 Q:

I SEE. SO WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE, YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THE MEDIA?

# 199 A:

I DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE MEDIA?

# 200 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 201 THE COURT:

LEGAL GROUND?

# 202 MS. CLARK:

HE WASN'T ASKED.

# 203 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 204 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT YOU PLACED THE REEBOK SHOES IN A BOX IN YOUR TRUNK THAT PARTICULAR DAY, YOU NEVER TOLD US THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE REEBOKS UNDER YOUR ARM AND PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF YOUR CAR AND DROVE ALL THE WAY HOME; IS THAT CORRECT, DID YOU? YOU NEVER TOLD US THAT, DID YOU?

# 205 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS EVER ASKED THAT.

# 206 Q:

THE QUESTION IS DID YOU TELL US THAT?

# 207 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

# 208 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 209 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU TELL US THAT?

# 210 A:

COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

# 211 Q:

DID YOU AT ANY TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF THIS JURY TELL US THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE REEBOK SHOES UNDER YOUR ARM AND PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR AND DROVE ALL THE WAY HOME BEFORE PLACING THEM IN THE TRUNK. DID YOU EVER TELL US THAT?

# 212 A:

I BELIEVE I TOLD YOU THAT I PLACED THEM IN THE TRUNK OF MY VEHICLE AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED.

# 213 Q:

I'M ASKING YOU DID YOU TELL US THAT YOU PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR, DETECTIVE?

# 214 A:

I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TELL YOU THAT, NO.

KEY QUOTE

# 215 Q:

WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? DID YOU TELL US THAT?

# 216 A:

NO.

# 217 Q:

YOU DID NOT?

# 218 A:

NO.

# 219 Q:

DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT OR ABOUT FIVE -- AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK THAT AFTERNOON?

# 220 A:

I DID.

# 221 Q:

YOU SAW HIM THERE?

# 222 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

# 223 Q:

DID YOU TALK TO HIM THAT AFTERNOON?

# 224 A:

I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION, YES.

# 225 Q:

COULD YOU HAVE GIVEN THE SHOES TO MR. FUNG AT ROCKINGHAM THAT AFTERNOON, SINCE HE ENDED UP GETTING THEM THE NEXT MORNING ON THE 14TH?

# 226 A:

HE APPARENTLY DID, BUT I WANTED TO TAKE THEM TO THE LAB AND HAVE THEM EXAMINED THERE. I WASN'T AWARE MR. FUNG WAS GOING TO BE AT THE LAB. MR. FUNG WORKS AT NORTHEAST STATION, WHICH IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE LAB.

# 227 Q:

WELL, MR. FUNG WAS THE CRIMINALIST WHO HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE COLLECTING EVIDENCE, BOTH SCENES, ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY, ALL DAY THAT DAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 228 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 229 Q:

AND YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN THESE REEBOKS TO HIM; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

# 230 A:

I COULD HAVE. MR. FUNG WAS A VERY BUSY MAN. I WANTED THESE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS DONE AT THE LAB AND TURNED OVER AT THAT TIME.

# 231 Q:

I'M SURE HE WAS A BUSY MAN. THE QUESTION IS YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN THESE REEBOKS TO MR. FUNG ON THAT MONDAY EVENING AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 232 A:

I COULD HAVE, CERTAINLY.

# 233 Q:

AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOUR BEST ESTIMATE THAT YOU WERE GETTING IN THE CAR AND PLACING THESE REEBOKS ON THE FRONT SEAT? WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

# 234 A:

I DON'T KNOW. PERHAPS SIX O'CLOCK.

# 235 Q:

ON JUNE 14?

# 236 A:

NO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUNE 13.

# 237 Q:

I MEAN JUNE 13. AND HOW LONG WAS YOUR DRIVE HOME?

# 238 A:

APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR.

# 239 Q:

HOW MANY MILES IS THAT?

# 240 A:

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 36, 38 MILES.

# 241 Q:

AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NO WAY YOU COULD BOOK THE ITEM, THE REEBOK SHOES, AT THAT TIME OF DAY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ROOM WAS CLOSED AND YOU COULDN'T GET A DR NUMBER?

# 242 A:

WELL, NOT ONLY WAS THE ECU CLOSED, THERE WAS NO DR NUMBER THAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED. THE CRIMINALIST WAS BOOKING THE ITEMS AND THEY HAD TO BE GIVEN AN ITEM NUMBER.

# 243 Q:

AND WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE RECOVERED AT BUNDY AND/OR ROCKINGHAM, THE CRIMINALIST BOOKED THOSE ITEMS THEMSELVES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 244 A:

YES, I BELIEVE ON THE 15TH.

# 245 Q:

BUT THIS ONE ITEM YOU BROUGHT BACK THE NEXT DAY ON THE 14TH MORNING, RIGHT?

# 246 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 247 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Johnnie Cochran

WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE SID UNIT HAS NEVER HAD A MR. WONG IN THE LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS?

Attacks the accuracy of Lange's contemporaneous notes, implying he fabricated or carelessly invented a witness name — undermining the reliability of his entire chronological record.

Tom Lange

I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TELL YOU THAT, NO.

Lange's admission that he never disclosed to the jury that he transported the Reebok shoes in the front seat of his car for an hour-long drive home before boxing them — a significant chain-of-custody gap.

Tom Lange

AS YOUR TAPE SHOWS, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF MEDIA AND I WAS GETTING PUSHED AND SHOVED AND THAT MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET AWAY FROM THE MEDIA.

Lange's explanation for not properly packaging the Reeboks at the scene — a new justification not previously offered to the jury, suggesting he was improvising.

Johnnie Cochran

AND IT WAS NEVER PRESERVED OR KEPT OR BOOKED BY ANYONE, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, OF THE LAPD; IS THAT CORRECT?

Establishes that the blanket placed over Nicole Brown Simpson's body — which could have transferred or wiped off trace evidence and blood — was simply abandoned at the scene.

Evidence (5)

Defendant's 1048

Property report dated 6/15/94 for Item No. 18, the Reebok tennis shoes, prepared by Fung and Mazzolla

Marked for identification; used to refresh Lange's recollection about the 8:30 a.m. handoff time and to establish Fung's involvement

Defendant's 1049

Videotape showing Detective Lange walking out of the Rockingham residence carrying the Reebok shoes under his arm and placing them in the front seat of his car

Played for jury; marked for identification; used to impeach Lange's prior incomplete testimony about shoe handling

Informal

Lange's chronological record, page 00007, referencing a meeting with Matheson, 'Wong,' and Yamauchi on June 14, 1994

Discussed; used to attack credibility by pointing out 'Wong' does not exist in the SID unit

Informal

Lange's sketch/diagram of the rear gate at Bundy, which contains no notation of blood spots

Discussed; used to corroborate absence of rear gate blood documentation

Informal

White blanket placed over Nicole Brown Simpson's body at Bundy crime scene

Discussed; established that it was never booked as evidence and was left at the scene

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran used the video (Deft 1049) to establish that Lange carried the Reeboks under his arm, placed them in the front seat — not a box — and drove an hour home before boxing them. Lange conceded he never disclosed this to the jury and claimed he was fleeing media pressure.

devastating

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran challenged Lange's note referencing 'Mr. Wong' at the SID lab, suggesting no such person existed in 17 years, and that Lange may have confused him with Fung. Lange deflected with 'I don't know' and 'not necessarily.'

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran established that the blanket covering Nicole's body was never booked as evidence, and walked Lange through the possibility that it could have transferred or wiped off trace evidence and blood from the body.

methodical

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Tom Lange

Prior inconsistent statement / omission

Cochran used video evidence to show Lange transported the Reebok shoes in the front seat of his car for an hour before boxing them — a material fact Lange never disclosed on direct examination. Lange admitted he had 'no reason' to tell them and had not done so.

⚔ Tom Lange

Impeachment via contemporaneous notes

Lange's chronological record references a 'Mr. Wong' at the SID lab. Cochran suggested no such person existed in 17 years, implying Lange's notes were inaccurate or fabricated, and that the person was actually Fung.

⚔ Tom Lange

Evidence of investigative negligence

Lange's notes and sketch of the Bundy rear gate contain no reference to blood spots later identified there. The blanket covering Nicole's body was never booked as evidence. Both points suggest incomplete or careless documentation at the crime scene.

Witness Demeanor

(WITNESS COMPLIES.) — reviewing property report

(WITNESS COMPLIES.) — reviewing second section of property report

(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) — when asked whether there was one blanket or sheet for each victim

Objections

5 objections (0 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 5187 • 247 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103