Sidebar: trace evidence analysis

📄 Sidebar: trace evidence analysis — Tuesday, March 7, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\7\SIDEBAR-TRACE-EVIDENCE-ANALYSI.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 32 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Det. Tom Lange (morning, part 1) Redirect examination of Det. Tom Lange (morning, part 2) ▶

Date: Tuesday, March 7, 1995 • Utterances: 19

Judge Ito called counsel to sidebar after Clark asked a question about trace evidence analysis that he felt lacked foundation. Clark explained she was redirecting to counter Cochran's cross-examination implying the investigation was rushed or inadequate. Cochran objected that the redirect question called for hearsay, but Ito overruled, noting that as lead investigator, Detective Lange was entitled to offer opinions.

# 1 THE COURT:

LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

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

# 3 THE COURT:

WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, I THINK THE QUESTION AND ANSWER CALLED FOR A CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

HERE IS WHAT I'M GOING AT, YOUR HONOR: MR. COCHRAN WENT INTO SOME LENGTH DISCUSSING WHETHER DETECTIVE LANGE HAD EXPLORED ANY OTHER LEADS.

# 5 THE COURT:

UH-HUH.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

WHETHER HE HAD DONE -- BASICALLY THE WHOLE TENOR IS HAVE YOU DONE AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION OR RUSHED TO JUDGMENT.

# 7 THE COURT:

UH-HUH.

# 8 MS. CLARK:

I THINK IT IS A FAIR REDIRECT TO GO INTO.

# 9 THE COURT:

I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING, TO ASK HIM WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAP, THE TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS ABOUT THE CAP THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON AS A WITNESS, AND THAT -- THAT IS CALLING FOR A CONCLUSION WITHOUT A FOUNDATION. IF HE -- YOU KNOW, HE IS AWARE OF THE REPORTS, HE HAS TALKED TO THE CRIMINALIST, HE HAS SEEN, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CONTENTS. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THE REPORTS REGARDING THE ANALYSIS OF THIS THING THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON? NO. I MEAN, THAT IS --

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

# 11 THE COURT:

SURE.

# 12 MR. COCHRAN:

I WAS PRECLUDED FROM GOING INTO THESE LINES, FINGERPRINTS AND THESE KIND OF THINGS. THE COURT AGREED WITH COUNSEL. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS, AND IT IS HEARSAY AND THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS. I NEVER ASKED HIM ABOUT THE KNIT CAP. I ASKED HIM ABOUT CAUCASIAN HAIRS WHICH WERE FOUND ON THE GLOVES. THAT IS WHAT I ASKED. I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THE KNIT CAP. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BEFORE WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THOSE WITNESSES TO GET IN HERE.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 THE COURT:

YOU WERE ALLOWED TO GO INTO A LOT OF OTHER DIFFERENT THINGS THERE.

# 14 MR. COCHRAN:

WELL, I DON'T FOLLOW THAT, YOUR HONOR. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO GO INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS HEARSAY BECAUSE THE COURT STOPPED US.

# 15 THE COURT:

THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.

# 16 MR. COCHRAN:

IF HE IS RELYING UPON SOMEBODY ELSE'S OPINION OR REPORT, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS HEARSAY.

# 17 THE COURT:

BUT HE IS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR. HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE SOME OPINIONS HERE.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 MR. COCHRAN:

YES. HE HAS SOME OPINIONS AND WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THEY ARE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

# 19 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Marcia Clark

BASICALLY THE WHOLE TENOR IS HAVE YOU DONE AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION OR RUSHED TO JUDGMENT.

Clark articulates the defense's implicit cross-examination strategy, framing her redirect as a necessary response to Cochran's 'rush to judgment' narrative.

Johnnie Cochran

I WAS PRECLUDED FROM GOING INTO THESE LINES, FINGERPRINTS AND THESE KIND OF THINGS. THE COURT AGREED WITH COUNSEL. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS.

Cochran argues the prosecution is getting latitude on redirect that the defense was denied on cross, highlighting a perceived asymmetry in the court's rulings.

Lance A. Ito

BUT HE IS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR. HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE SOME OPINIONS HERE.

Ito's rationale for overruling the hearsay objection — Lange's role as lead investigator gives him standing to offer conclusions drawn from reports.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Knit cap — trace evidence analysis results

discussed as basis for redirect question

Informal

Caucasian hairs found on the gloves

referenced by Cochran as the actual subject of his cross-examination, distinguished from the cap

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran argued the redirect question called for hearsay because Lange would be relying on someone else's report or opinion; Ito pushed back that a lead investigator is entitled to opinions and overruled.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran complained that he was blocked from exploring similar lines on cross-examination while the prosecution is now permitted to do so on redirect, arguing inconsistent treatment.

heated

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5189 • 19 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103